if you personally go back and forth on whether or not a guy is a HOFer, then he probably ain’t. or at least you probably shouldn’t think so.

i agree with sulli that raines is a HOFer, but like most here disagree about blylevin NOT being one.

he says at the bottom that baseball-reference.com is the final word, but apparently ignores Blyleven’s career ERA, WHIP, innings pitched, strikeouts, and walks.

Reading that made me realize how much I despise wins, losses, runs, and RBI. I’d sorta forgotten.

Henderson – Obvious
McGwire – I’d vote for Bonds and Sosa too…
Blyleven – I can understand the ‘no’ argument, I just don’t agree
Smith – His 20 minute walk from the bullpen alone merits HOF consideration
Raines – I always forget how good he was, and then I look at his numbers.

Big no on Jim Rice.

…and that’s it.

I want to support Morris, Trammell and Dawson because they were favorites of mine growing up, but when I take a hard look at each of them they come up short.

But at least he’s voting for Raines and supports the Santo camp.

I’m a small hall guy. I think it should be the hall of truly great, not the hall of very good. I don’t wanna go visit Cooperstown one day with my son and have to explain to him why Babe Ruth is next to Jim Fucking Rice or Mickey mantle is next to Mike Fucking Mussina.

Henderson is a no doubt about it lock. One of the special players.

The only reason McGwire isn’t a lock is the steroids, but even in era where tons of power hitters were juicng he stood out. Way out. 70 home runs out. The hall wouldn’t be complete without a record of this man and his accomplishments, imo. So he gets in.

After that I see a lot of really, really good players, but no one I consider true greatness.

is always my attitude about the HOF. Blyleven deserves to be in, but I’m not going to get all worked up about it.

I prefer that a player’s Hall of Fame credentials be spelled out in three sentences or less. Guys who need a full page to have their credentials explained lose me.

WTF does that even mean?! Why?!

I like 20-win seasons and Cy Young Awards. I prefer guys who win games.

I do not understand how hard it is for someone to grasp the uselessness of wins and the stupidity in caring about them. I cared about Wins and Losses for pitchers for about the first 30 seconds that I was a real baseball fan, and that’s when I was about 12. I have never in my life understood the fascination with them. I would think a five year old could understand they don’t really tell you anything about the pitcher.

I like Gold Gloves. I know the Gold Glove Award can be suspect at times but I like players who were outstanding on both offense and defense.

What the hell?! He acknowledges that GGs can be suspect “at times,” but then doesn’t actually give the case for why that doesn’t matter after the “but.” He’s making two completely different and unrelated points in the same sentence.

I know my Taco Bell taco may have hantavirus, but I really like chicken fingers.

I like the No. 100. As in 100 runs scored and/or 100 RBI. Look, you have to have some kind of cutoff point. 90 is good too. So is 18 wins. But I like 20 wins and the No. 100.

So he boldly admits to not only liking worthless stats, but being fucking arbitrary as hell.

This is a human wasteland of fail.

You should check out Baseball Fever’s Progressive Hall of Fame.

It started in 1900 and has been going year by year (each week is a year) through history following pretty much the same format as the Hall. Right now we’re on 1929, and any player so we’re voting on any players who retired between 1909 and 1924. It’s interesting to go through the process of creating a standard, investigating players, listening to arguments, making arguments and (in some years) trying to decide who fits on your ballot and who doesn’t.

Baseball Fever is an excellent site, anyway. Highly recommended.

who gets alot of love from the voters due to one game, although that was one hell of a game

Why the annual tradition of each writer posting this exact same column. I understand the transparency angle, but given the asinine justifications* and cutoffs that get out every year, I’d prefer some mystery.

• Woody Paige’s go beyond asinine. Didn’t he vote for a guy last year because the guy was polite?

HOF ballot time. Yet something else that makes me miss FJM’s work.

Does anyone other than me think that Bert Blyleven’s name works against him? I mean, when people talk about the Hall of Fame, there is a fame component involved, and someone with a name like “Jack Morris” might feel more like a friend to a voter. A certain name, or a good nickname seems to stick with you. When you’re thinking great players of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, don’t Reggie “Mr. October” Jackson, Mickey “The Mick” Mantle, and Stan “The Man” Musial come to you a little quicker then Harmon Killebrew?

Beyond that, I really can’t agree with T.R. Sullivan’s rationale here for excluding Blyleven. Nobody who’s eligible to be in the Hall of Fame with more strikeouts than Blyleven isn’t in. And to my knowledge, the only players who’ve been eligible for the Hall of Fame who aren’t in and have more wins than Blyleven’s 287 are Bobby Matthews (297) and Tommy John (288).