I'm late in saying it, but baseball is back, baby!

We’re three weeks into it, but the new baseball season is here.

Finally.

And, like a broken record, I was getting the same old advice about what to write about. Sure, “The Hall” has been dormant for a while (sorry, troops), but I don’t know that anyone has been paying attention to what I am writing when I hear comments like “you should make your predictions for the upcoming season” or “give me some tips as to who should I pick in my fantasy league”.

Fact of the matter is this…I make NO predictions (Red Sox over the Dodgers) and I’ve never legitimately finished first in any fantasy league I’ve take part in.

Ever.

So what to write about? Any knucklehead with a keyboard can bang out some reference to John Mayer doing play by play in Japan.

But I won’t.

Frank Thomas being released by the Blue Jays

Too easy…but it’s probably coming.

Me? I’m going the introspective route.

March 31 was the OFFICIAL beginning of Spring. It wasn’t March 21 like the calendars say. And it sure as Hell wasn’t when baseball trotted out its latest multi-cultural money maker last week. To me, those are both “Hallmark Holidays”.

For me, the minute that first pitch is thrown in Cincinnati marks the beginning of Spring.

Now, I realize that that might not be the most popular thing I’ve said (and for the record…this was), but along the way, I’ve been called plenty of names. Most of them are warranted…some not. Either way, everyone has a right to their opinion. But of all the names that have been hurled my way, there is one I don’t mind.

Contrarian.

Basically, a contrarian is a person who deliberately goes against the popular opinion. I’m not about to say I go against the grain on purpose…but there are definitely a few good examples of why people have hurled this moniker my way.

I’m a tried and true Star Wars dork, but I have ZERO desire to ever watch ANY of the Lord of the Rings movies.

I went to college in the 90s, yet loathe the Dave Matthews Band.

The kicker to most...I grew up in Illinois and I HATE the Chicago Cubs.

Wrigley Field, the little “c” on their hats, Ernie Banks, Ron Santo and the fact that they call themselves the “Lovable Losers”…they all get my goat (reference intended). I do find it endearing, however, that while Boston overwhelmingly embraced the arrival of Daisuke Matsuzaka…the “Lovable Losers” have these shirts available just outside the “Friendly Confines” to celebrate Kosuke Fukudome.

Blarg.

There are some Cubs I HAVE liked however.

Nomar (naturally, but I would never consider him a “Cub”), Andre Dawson, Leon Durham and for some reason…Lee Arthur Smith.

I mean, here was a guy that when he entered the game…you knew it was over. Sure, he’d give you a heart attack every now and again, but ultimately, he’d pick up the save and Cub fans could rejoice as the “W” flag was hoisted high above Wrigleyville.

Recently, we’ve seen a handful of closers make their way to Cooperstown…so why shouldn’t that trend continue with Lee Smith? It’s almost like he’s the forgotten closer out there.

But I’m not sure why.

Right now, Trevor Hoffman is the all-time saves leader. Truth is, he was the first one to 500 and every time he nails down another…it gets mentioned on SportsCenter. But before Hoffman was the all-time leader…Smith was.

For 13 years.

Oh…and his 478 saves dwarfs the 310 and 300 that recent Hall inductees Goose Gossage and Bruce Sutter notched.

But Smith must have been a one inning pitcher…guys like Goose consistently earned his saves by going two or more innings. I mean, that was what we heard last year when Gossage was knocking on the door of the Hall, right?

Well…so did Smith.

At the start of his career, Smith had a stretch of more than 830 innings pitched compared to 592 games played. That’s 83 or more innings pitched in eight of nine years. Three years in a row, he eclipsed 100 or more innings.

By comparison, a guy like Hoffman has seven years where he has pitched fewer innings than the number of games he’s appeared in. Actually, aside from Mariano Rivera…that seems to be the trend of many of the big name closers out there today.

Here’s a fun one for ya…raise your hand if you knew Lee Smith held the record for most games finished in his career.

No one?

Hoffman is second, nearly 70 behind Smith (737 to 802)…but after that, Rivera (664) and Billy Wagner (608) are the only two ACTIVE players within 200 games finished of Smith.

Speaking of closing out games (and getting back to saves), Smith had thirteen years where he tallied 25 or more saves. Hoffman did it 12 out of 13 years (he was injured for most of 2003). Gossage and Sutter each had seven seasons TOTAL with 25 or more.

It is relatively common now, but in 1987, Smith became only the second pitcher EVER (Dan Quisenberry was the first) to reach 30 or more saves in four consecutive seasons. When it came to closing out games in the early 90s…Smith and Dennis Eckersley were by far the most dependable and durable pair out there.

And we all know where Eckersley’s career ended up.

The big knock on Smith is his ERA. People will complain up and down that the big fella gave up WAY too many runs to be considered for the Hall of Fame. They’ll suggest that a Hall worthy closer needs to have a microscopic ERA before they’ll even consider them. Sutter had a career ERA of 2.83, Rollie Fingers...2.90. Right ahead of Smith's career ERA of 3.03 is Gossage and his 3.01, so you can see that Lee isn't necessarily that far off the mark.

Another fun fact (thanks Wikipedia) that makes Smith a fun conversation piece is this...he is one of a small percentage of players (the list of pitchers is even smaller) to have their first big league hit be a home run. Also on that list…Hall of Fame reliever Hoyt Wilhelm. Smith hit his off of Hall of Famer Phil Niekro…no clue who surrendered the Wilhelm dinger. Suffice it to say, they were the only two longballs the pair managed.

So, here we have Smith…a seven time All-Star, three times a top five finisher in the Cy Young Award voting. Will he make the Hall? He looks like a longshot when compared to the guys who dominate the highlights on a nightly basis, but I don’t think you can discredit him.

Even by looking at the votes he's gotten, he's on pace with what Sutter and Gossage did before him. Sutter was on the ballot 13 years before he got in and in his first year of eligibility...he only garnered 23% of the vote. Gossage wasn't much better. Nine years on the ballot, he ranged from the initial 33% to the eventual 85% he got last year. Smith has been on six years and hit the ballot strong with a 36% showing. This past year, he climbed to his highest total...45%. Remember, it only takes three-fourths of the writers to vote for you to get in and Sutter eeked by at 76%.

Compared to his contemporaries (which is what you MUST do when discussing the Hall of Fame), Smith stacks up statistically…he belongs in the conversation. Hell, he belongs right there at the beginning of the discussion, but the problem is, Smith has been the victim of so many modern day players…through free agency, he lost his identity.

It is MUCH easier for the casual fan to embrace a player who toes the same rubber from year to year a la Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera. But then again…if you are going to spend eight years with the Cubs and only be part of ONE winning ballclub, you can’t blame a guy.

I mean…who REALLY wants to be known as a lifelong “Loveable Loser”?

***Note: Based on the "Is Lee Smith a Hall of Famer" poll that was on the page...70% of you think he is.***

Someone died today...I think

I want to apologize up front for deviating from the norm…but I think the news of the day warrants it.

Apparently Brett Favre died today.

I know what you’re thinking “ummm, I believe he just retired”…but I’d have to disagree. You see, I have two TVs in my office (yes, I’m THAT much of a prick that I believe one just isn't sufficient) and while one was tuned to whatever local affiliate I had on, the other was on ESPN or one of its subsidiaries.

Why?

Not because I was recently mentioned in one of Rob Neyer’s blogs on espn.com (check it out HERE), but because, like I said…apparently Brett Favre died. ESPN had around the clock coverage of this news story, but let’s face it…it wasn’t like this was a surprise.

I’m pretty sure that every year after the Green Bay Packers bow out of the playoffs or whatever lackluster season they just had, EVERYONE and their mother ASSUMES that Favre MIGHT not be coming back. Well, this year, evidently, he’s “mentally tired” and is saying goodbye.

Haven’t we heard this before from this guy?

Pretty much.

As sports fans, haven’t we heard this before from plenty of other athletes?

Yes…we have.

Pull out the crayons and color me skeptical, but I’m not 100% sold on the fact that we won’t see Brett Favre lace ‘em up and throw another one of his all-time leading interceptions (a record that people seem to forget that he holds)…but we’ve heard this song and dance before.

If it is indeed over, maybe it was fitting that Favre ended his career with an overtime turnover versus the Giants. Instead of picking up his ball and going home, he just heaved it down the field to the opponent.

And then, like Warren Sapp (who, by the way, ALSO retired today), he quit.

After all the tributes come and go (and there WILL be plenty), I guess Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk summed it up best when he said “the state of Wisconsin is going to be in mourning for a while”.

I’m just not sure why.

Joel, Ethan...David?!? I'm conefused!

I understand that I’m late with this one, but as you all know by now…the Academy Awards were held last weekend. During the broadcast, my buddy Rob called and he and I got to talking about the Coen Brothers chances at winning “the big one”.

We both knew they had been nominated in the past and that their movies had garnered some awards…but they, essentially, had been shut out when it came to Best Director and Best Picture.

At the conclusion of the annual Oscar snoozefest (you can read E’s account of the evening here), No Country for Old Men walked away with four awards. The ear tugging Coens ended up on stage three separate times. Now, I’ve been a fan of theirs for some twenty years, but do these accolades somehow legitimize this FANTASTIC filmmaking team as “great”?

If they don’t…what does? And how does THAT translate to those who step between the white lines at least 162 times every year?

Guys like Ted Williams and Ernie Banks were sure bet Hall of Famers when they decided to hang ‘em up, but they’ll ALWAYS be saddled with that “they never won the Series” black eye.

That being said, the argument for Jack Morris is that he SHOULD be in the Hall because, conversely, he has…and has done so in grandiose fashion. Hell, I’ve even made that argument…TWICE! Furthermore…when Curt Schilling ultimately packs up his bloody sock and leaves the baseball world, people AGAIN will point to his post season heroics.

So what about a guy who ended his career just shy of 200 victories (194), a .606 winning percentage, nearly 2700 Ks, a Cy Young Award, a perfect game AND five (yes, FIVE) World Series rings?

I know what you’re thinking…PLENTY of guys have five or more World Series rings. And you’d be right. I'd then point out that a majority of them were Yankees that made their money before the Kennedy administration.

HOWEVER, of the players with five or more…a MAJORITY of them are Yankees and a majority of them made their money before the Kennedy administration.

So, am I saying that David Cone is a Hall of Famer?

Probably not. But I think you need to examine his career before you cast his career aside.

His 194 victory total isn’t THAT great. I’m sure HE would tell you that. But when you consider that he played amid the five man rotation and eleven out of twelve years there in the middle of his career he notched double digit wins…he wasn’t that shabby.

Coney also won sixty percent of his ballgames. In 1988, he had, arguably, one of the best ten seasons of the 1980s. How he went 20-3 with a 2.22 ERA, finished THIRD in the Cy Young voting and didn’t get a single first place vote is beyond me. Unanimous winner Orel Hershiser notched 23 victories and a World Series ring…but 20-3!

They vote for that thing PRIOR to the post season, right?!?

About that Cy Young award Cone DID get…it was in the strike shortened 1994 season. Cone was 16-5 and would have probably have gotten to 20 had the season played out how God intended. All and all, it is a little ironic considering Cone acted as the player’s representative during the whole ordeal.

Cone ended his career with 2668 strikeouts…good for twenty first on the all-time list. Of the twenty guys ahead of him on the all-time list, all but nine are Hall of Famers.

Of those nine, Mickey Lolich and Frank Tanana won’t get past the doors of Cooperstown without paying for their admittance. Bert Blyleven and Curt Schilling are both guys who MIGHT (in due time) make it in. The rest of the bunch (John Smoltz, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens) are pretty safe bets to be inducted.

I keep getting back to those five rings though.

This is a guy that was involved in each and every one of those seasons...he wasn't just some fortunate opportunist. His teams were 12-3 in the 15 series he played and he carried an 8-3 post season record. Was he THE determining factor? No…but neither was fellow five time champ Catfish Hunter and he is a Hall of Famer that Cone almost compares to the most.

Overall, Hunter was 224-166, whereas Cone was 194-126. Advantage Hunter, right? Not necessarily. During Catfish’s five year hot streak where he won twenty or more each year, he amassed an ASTOUNDING 111-49 record. Take away those five seasons and Hunter is a VERY average 113-117 for his career. I guess it is safe to say that Cone had a more consistent career…not just one big peak like Catfish.

Both men took home a Cy Young award and finished in the top five three other times. Hunter had a better career ERA (3.26 compared to 3.46), but if you look at the rest of the league at the time…Cone was FAR better than his contemporaries, whereas Hunter was about average.

Both men were known for their control…but as I’ve mentioned before, Cone did amass quite a healthy strikeout total. By comparison, Hunter punched out 2012 opponents…some 650 less than Cone.

I’m by no means going to sit here and bang the drum for David Cone’s inclusion in the Hall of Fame. He wasn’t a big character guy. His alleged cocaine use, adulterous behavior and penchant for public masturbation are all well documented...thanks Google!

But you could do a lot worse.

***Note: The "is David Cone a Hall of Famer?" poll garnered the following results...Yes-12%, No-63 and Dear God No-24%.***

Nothing much to say...sorry.

Now that the ink is dry and Johan Santana has officially turned his head and coughed…I reckon it is time for me to write something about the ginormity of the Twins-Mets trade.

But I won’t…I don’t care.

Frankly, I was more excited when I heard that Sean Casey signed with the Red Sox then when I heard about Santana going to the Big Apple. We all knew he was going to be traded…and we all knew he was going to be going to one of a select handful of teams.

You see, I started this post a while back when comments like that were fresh. Since then, plenty has happened in the world and I’ve been way too sidetracked to sit down and bang out something new for you, my eight loyal readers.

In a world where Herbie Hancock (yes, THAT Herbie Hancock) wins the top Grammy of the night, Roger Clemens continues to piss away his credibility (and entrance to the Hall of Fame) and just minutes down the road from me, Northern Illinois University erupts in gunfire…I’ve got precious little to add.

I mean, who really cares what I think about Juan Gonzalez’s comeback and his chances of being elected to the Hall of Fame (he won’t) when, thanks to the writer’s strike being over, we’re just a few LONG months away from all new episodes of According to Jim?!?

So here ya have it…a lot of words, but no substance. Would you want it any other way?

I’ll be back in the fold within the week, gang. I’ve got some material kicking around this old head of mine and once I sort it out…we’re all in trouble.

Thank you for your patronage and to avoid this from becoming yet another cliché post, I have one last thing to add…“I drink your milkshake!”

Brady Anderson is a pimp (maybe...no?)

Earlier this month, former Oriole outfielder Brady Anderson parlayed the support Hall of Fame support he received from former teammate Cal Ripken, Jr. into zero (yes, ZERO) votes.

In the five years between his last Major League at bat and the Hall voting, Anderson has been named in the Mitchell Report, had his sexuality questioned, sired some bastard kid with a Bulgarian supermodel, became co-owner of the ABA Hollywood Fame and is rumored to be part of the upcoming cast of Dancing with the Stars (he's not).

His latest antics (click on the picture) take the cake I'm afraid.

Let me get this straight...this guy could walk into a club and get ANY girl he wanted, but instead he's throwing his junk around Los Angeles and trying to bed anything that will answer a text message? Is he the only player besides Barry Bonds to have had both a 50 home run season and a 50 steal season (he is) or a fraternity president?

Personally, I still think of him as part of the trade (along with Curt Schilling) that brought Mike Boddicker to Boston in 1988. I'm lying...I'll always remember him for the bitchin' sideburns.

Pitching might have been better in 1971

***Note: E is back. Check out his normal ramblings HERE!***

The other day, I just happened to catch a replay of Game Seven of the 1971 World Series on ESPN Classic. As I wasn't born at the time, I really didn't know anything about this series, but as I enjoy watching old baseball games, back in the days when TV sports broadcasting was so primitive, I sat and watched the thing.

During the seventh or so inning of the game, the play-by-play guy mentioned that there were two Baltimore starters warming up in the bullpen for relief. He said that, at that time, Baltimore's three 20-game winners were all pitching at the same time (Mike Cueller was in the game, with Pat Dobson and Dave McNally in the pen).

"Three 20-game winners?" I thought to myself. "That's a TON!"

What I didn't realize (and the announcer didn't mention) until I looked into it further is that Baltimore actually had four 20-game winners, the fourth being some young punk named Jim Palmer.

I know: Who is THAT?

Four 20-game winners.

Wow!

Mind you, those Orioles teams of the late '60s/early '70s were some great teams. They went 318-164 from '69-'71, a win total some teams have trouble hitting in four season, much less a mere three. Those three teams never had any fewer than two 20-game winners on them (two in '69, three in '70). And, '71 was the whopper year with four. For comparison, in 2007, there was one 20-game winner in all of baseball. The '71 Orioles had four on just that one team. I'd say the pitching quality has maybe decreased over the years, wouldn't you?

Now, the instant rebuttal to the four 20-game winners is the fact that that staff rolled with a four-man rotation, which means the pitchers ended up getting more starts per year. If Jake Peavy (second with 19 wins in '07) had four or five more starts, maybe he would have broken 20 wins, as would a number of other pitchers. But teams nowadays run with five starter rotations: fewer starts means fewer win opportunities. Maybe if today's pitchers went with four man rotations, they could have four 20-game winners. So, maybe that's not all that impressive.

But I suspect that all those wins didn't come from just having a lot of starts.

Pitchers back then were a lot more durable than today's guys. Between them, the four Orioles starters had 70 complete games. For comparison, in '07, both leagues combined had 112. That's four guys with 70 versus at least 30 times as many guys with 112. The individual leader in '07 was Roy Halliday with seven. The least any starter on the '71 Orioles could manage was Dave McNally with 11. So, maybe the Orioles pitchers had so many wins because they were able to pitch it all the way through, something almost unheard of these days.

It's gotten so bad, that we have a stat, the "quality start," which has basically replaced the complete game.

But complete games don't mean anything if you go out there and pitch like shit. Oh sure, you pitched nine innings, but you gave up 15 runs. Kinda makes those complete games irrelevant. But that wasn't a problem with the '71 Orioles. The four Orioles starters had a combined ERA of 2.89, with Jim Palmer's 2.68 the best on the team.

The best in '07 was Jake Peavy's 2.54. If that's the best ERA in both leagues, I'd be hard pressed to believe that you could come up with any four starter combinations from any team that could top that 2.89 ERA. Hell, the '71 Orioles team ERA was 2.99.

The best '07 could muster was the Padres' 3.70.

It should be noted that 17 of the 24 teams that existed in '71 had team ERAs better than the '07 Padres.

What it comes down to is four guys on the same team who were better than anyone we got pitching today. And the fact that at least three of those guys put up the same stat line year after year only strengthens the case. Everyone seems to blame the past two decades' increase in power on all the hitters being juiced up. I think it's because the pitching stinks. And, the fact that we now have five man rotations means we have more shitty pitchers than they did back in the day.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Better late than never I suppose

At some point last Tuesday night, I lost part of a filling. I’ve gotta admit, chewing on food and then (all of a sudden) biting down on a piece of amalgam is startling. It didn’t hurt…I’m getting it fixed.

Earlier in the day, Goose Gossage became the lone inductee to the Baseball Hall of Fame and somehow, losing a filling was the most exciting thing that happened on the that day. Hell, it was the most exciting thing to happen all last week to be honest!

Frankly…I’m not surprised.

I’ve posted it here that Goose being voted in was pretty much a foregone conclusion. As I’ve said before, I don’t think he is a Hall of Famer, but since SOMEONE seemingly had to get in…why not Goose, right? Dig your Gossage jerseys out from the mothballs, kids! Wait...what number was his? Did/do people even OWN Goose jerseys?

It was the vote totals that surprised me though.

After nine years on the ballot, 85.8% of the writers ALL OF A SUDDEN believe that Gossage is a Hall of Famer. In that same nine years, Dave Winfield (84.5%), Eddie Murray (85.3%), Dennis Eckersley (83.2%) and Paul Molitor (85.2%) all made the Hall of Fame with LESS support than Goose got this year.

That’s right, all of a sudden, more Hall voters feel that Gossage is more worthy than each of those players who (at the time they were elected) BURIED Gossage in the voting.

I try understand how it works...I really do. What can’t be stressed enough is the importance of who you are stacked up against.

Which brings me to…

Jim Rice (72.2%)
Many expected that this would be the year that Rice FINALLY made it to Cooperstown given the lack of competition. But even though he fell only 16 votes short, I don’t see it happening next year either. Basically, it’ll be hard to induct the guy that, this year, many proclaimed the “best leftfielder not in the Hall” when Rickey Henderson is up for election.

Andre Dawson (65.9%) and Tim Raines (24.3%)
No love for the Expos I guess. Hawk not making it in is not as surprising as Rock getting less than a quarter of the vote. Dawson will be one of those guys like Tony Perez who, after a number of years on the ballot…voters will say “why not”. HOWEVER...Perez didn’t have the competition that Dawson likely will. We’re about to see a slew of Hall worthy players coming up before the voters, folks.

Raines, on the other hand, shocks me…I figured he would have gotten at least double the votes he did. Maybe voters are planning a Henderson-Raines induction next year. I mean, why not induct the best two lead-off hitters of their time in the same year? It won’t happen, but the speeches would be awesome.

Bert Blyleven (61.9%), Jack Morris (42.9%) and Tommy John (29.1%)
Plenty of wins and Ks from this trio, but all in all…there’s not likely to be any Hall calls here. Blyleven has (for some reason) become the sexy pick as of late. Like Gossage, he’s been vocal about the Hall of Fame and that has drummed up some support for his inclusion. Morris, while I’ve made the case for him, is about to be overshadowed by some big name pitchers on some upcoming ballots. Sorry Jack…it probably won’t be happening for you.

And speaking of “not happening”…Tommy John is still on the ballot?!? I’m pretty sure, John has been on EVERY ballot since about 1984. I will say that, like his career, John has been VERY consistent with Hall voters. The lowest percentage of votes he’s gotten…18.7. The most…29.6.

Mark McGwire (23.6%)
Next…ain’t happenin'..

Alan Trammell (18.2%), Dave Concepcion (16.2%) and Don Mattingly (15.8%)
Apparently Detroit, Cincinnati and New York have between 15.8 and 18.2% of the vote. I know that math isn’t right…but you get what I mean.

Harold Baines (5.2%)
28 voters think Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer. That’s it? In his first year on the ballot (last year), 29 voters were on the side of Baines. So…who changed their vote?!? C’mon guys…three years ago, 26 of you thought that Willie McGee should be enshrined. If the argument for Blyleven is that he has the most wins or most Ks out of ANYONE that isn’t enshrined…Baines’ hit total has to mean more than 5.2% of the voters think he is worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Rob Nen (2 votes)
I kinda thought Nen would get more than 2 votes considering he was lights out before his arm fell off in 2002. Nen had 315 saves in nine seasons as a closer…yikes!

Brady Anderson and Jose Rijo (0 votes)
The man with the 90210 sideburns and the Playmate wife had the support of Hall darling Cal Ripken Jr., is one of two players (Barry Bonds being the other) to have stolen 50 bases and hit 50 home runs and STILL couldn’t buy a vote. Incidentally, in 2004, Hall of Famer Jim Palmer suggested Anderson’s 50 jack season was steroid influenced. Not a chance I say!

I only mention Jose Rijo because in 2001 (the FIRST time Rijo was Hall eligible), he received one vote. How that ONE writer decided seven years later (after Rijo retired AGAIN) to NOT vote for Rijo again is beyond me.

The big question…how did Todd Stottlemyre get a vote?

***Note: Following the Hall of Fame voting, I posed the question..."who else should have been elected?" Overwhelmingly, NO ONE garnered much support. Andre Dawson was just under 50% with 48% of the vote. After that, Tim Raines (43%), Jim Rice (39%), Bert Blyleven (35%), Harold Baines (30%), Mark McGwire, Jack Morris and Alan Trammell (26%), Dale Murphy (17%), Tommy John, Dave Parker and Lee Smith (9%), Dave Concepcion and Don Mattingly (4%). "Other" received a whopping 13%...thanks gang!***

Mr. Blyleven, it's your time...maybe!

I was sitting around with the fellas the other night and we got talking about the Hall of Fame. As expected, all the usual names came up.

Tim Raines.

Andre Dawson.

Jim Rice.

Goose Gossage.

And since the Mitchell Report is still in the news (thanks Roger Clemens!)…Mark McGwire’s name even got a mention or two. Not a bad crowd of potential Hall of Famers. Hell, two or three of them might soon wake up to the pleasant sound of Cooperstown calling them home.

But you know who DIDN’T get mentioned…Bert Blyleven. That’s right. The darling of the online 2008 Hall of Fame discussions (I've even casually endorsed him in the past both here and here) is rarely ever REALLY brought up outside of Googling “Bert Blyleven+Hall of Fame” from your laptop.

Why is that?

Here’s a guy that PLENTY of writers are pimping for enshrinement, but for some reason, people out in the “real world” aren’t really bringing his name up in polite conversation. The guy played professional ball in four decades (Bert was drafted in 1969, but didn’t make the bigs until June 1970) for five different teams (twice with the Twins). He even has two World Series rings…and both times, one could argue that he was his team’s "go to" guy!

All-time, Blyleven’s stats stack up wonderfully to some of those already in the Hall. Over at Baseball Reference, his top ten comparisons feature eight Hall of Famers. The two that aren’t…Tommy John and Jim Kaat.

And let’s be honest, someone COULD make a case for both of them.

Fifth all-time in strikeouts has to account for something right? I mean, 3701 is nothing to sniff at. Only Nolan Ryan, Clemens, Randy Johnson and Steve Carlton have more. Of the players with 3000 Ks or more, you could almost say that all of them WILL be enshrined, even if the jury is still out on Curt Schilling. Not bad company to be in if you ask me.

When making the case for the Dutchman, EVERYONE mentions Blyleven’s low ERA (3.31) and points to his career 60 shutouts as a contributing factor. To put that into perspective…Ryan and Tom Seaver each have 61. Clemens is 26th all-time with 46…Blyleven is ninth. Allow me to go one step further…there are only TWO pitchers eligible for Hall induction that have thrown more scoreless games than Clemens. Luis Tiant is one…he has 49. Blyleven, obviously, is the other.

The magic number for career victories is 300. EVERY pitcher (all 20 of them) eligible for the Hall of Fame that has more than 300 victories is in there. But that’s where it falls off…275 to 299 victories must not mean as much. Blyleven’s career total resides at 287. Say what you want to…had there not been a strike in 1981 or had he not been hurt in 1982, Blyleven might have gotten to 300.

But he didn’t.

Heck, had he retired following his last good year (1989), he would have topped off at 271. Again, he didn’t and therefore falls into the “almost…but not quite” company of John and Kaat.

All that being said, his career numbers are, if at the least…”Hall worthy”. So, I’m confused…how do people NOT know who this colorful character is?

The layman’s argument for Blyleven’s inclusion sounds impressive when you lay them out over the span of a “normal” career…but Rik Aalbert Blyleven pitched longer than Christ walked the Earth. He was also durable…which means even if he was slightly above average (at best), his numbers would STILL pile up. And they did.

Let’s start with wins.

No one seems to mention that fact that of those 287 victories…only ONCE Bert topped 20 victories. And that was in a season where he went 20-17. 20 wins is great, but 20-17 is a record only Wilbur Wood would be proud of. Once at 20, another time with 19…then what? Five seasons of 17 victories? Is that how we’re judging “greatness now?!?

It should be noted that in that “magical” 1973 season when Blyleven was 20-17, his Twins were 81-81. It wasn’t like he played for the 1962 Mets. He was a slightly average pitcher on an average ballclub. I won’t even mention the fact that there were TWELVE American League pitchers with 20 or more victories in 1973.

Wait, I just did.

Let’s face it…a .534 winning percentage isn’t all that spectacular, even if you played for some lousy teams. A Hall of Famer (to me) is someone who elevates his team to be better than they should be. And, admittedly, perhaps Blyleven’s record isn’t indicative of his worth. He did, of course, pitch his team to FIFTEEN 1-0 victories. Granted, he lost ten others…but you can’t blame a guy for lack of run support.

3701 is a tremendous number when it comes to strikeouts and Blyleven reaching 3701 Ks is an equally tremendous feat. The fact that eight times scattered throughout an almost 21 complete seasons, Bert topped 200 Ks is good…but not an eye popper. I’m not comparing the two, just using him as an example, but Pedro Martinez topped 200 Ks in ten out of eleven years during his climb to prominence…and twice he surpassed 300! That, to me, is the example of someone out there killing the opponent.

And of those years where Blyleven racked up some quality strikeout figures, did he ever blow away the competition and lead the league?

Once…in 1985 he bested Floyd Bannister by 8 strikeouts. 206 compared to 198 AND Bert pitched in almost 90 MORE innings…not really dominant.

“Dominance” shouldn’t be judged the number of times a guy leads the league in strikeouts, right? Basically, when I think of a “strikeout pitcher”…I think of a guy like Randy Johnson. Not a guy who benefited from a four-man rotation instead of the modern five.

But that’s okay.

I mean, let’s look at the bigger picture…how many times did Bert lead the league in ERA? Wins? What about winning percentage?

How many Cy Young Awards did this cat bring home?

Zero.

He was an All-Star twice, but c’mon…so was Esteban Loaiza. And frankly, when do you suppose the last (or first) time someone NOT named “Blyleven” uttered the words…”I sure do hope Bert’s on the hill today” on their way to the ballpark?

Plenty of writers will give a sympathy nod to Blyleven by labeling him “unlucky”. Unfortunately, these are mostly the same guys who blast writers for calling Jim Rice the “most feared hitter of his time”. So what opinion is most valid…we’ll soon find out when that sleepy little town in New York comes a callin’ for some new blood.

Drop me an email at hallofverygood@yahoo.com and who knows…your words might just end up on this website!

***Note: There is a really, really great site out there (Bert Belongs) that makes a great pitch (pun intended) for Bert's inclusion...you should check it out!***