Blyleven: Finally gets his Hall of Fame wish

Bert Blyleven is proof that if you harp on yourself for 15 years about how you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, eventually the writers will put you in - as long as you have at least one notable career statistical achievement. Blyleven is 5th in career strikeouts with 3,701.

Blyleven has spent previous years on national media outlets expressing his displeasure with not being elected into the Hall. On and on he would go about not being recognized, making sure people really gave his career some thought. This year he finally got his wish. He will be inducted into the Hall of Fame, along with Roberto Alomar, on Sunday in Cooperstown.

Blyleven has waited 14 years for Sunday.

Is Blyleven a Hall of Famer? It's not just Blyleven, but others in the same category as him. For instance, Andre Dawson. "The Hawk", like Blyleven, waited an extended period before getting the number of votes for induction last year. Dawson got in on his ninth ballot, Blyleven on his 14th, second-to-last year of eligibility.

My question is: do the voters feel like 'who are we to say this guy shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame?'  I looks like that's the case for Blyleven. He would have bitched and moaned beyond belief if they would have stiffed him completely. This year the ballot was weak and the voters had heard enough from Bert, who would have taken to the Twins broadcasts with his somber if denied again.

The couple different schools of thought on Hall of Fame voting must be applied here, and for all cases. There isn't a right or wrong answer, necessarily, and both are very compelling arguments.

HOF criteria #1: You don't even have to think about it. Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Nolan Ryan, Barry Bonds. Those type of players. This has been made nationally known by Skip Bayless, who teaches this school of thought. "It's not the Hall-of-Very-Good."

In order to determine if someone like Blyleven or Dawson gets into the Hall of Fame, you have to go and look at the numbers. At least I do. I know about them, but they don't shout "Hall of Fame" to me. Because of that, these guys wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

However, this same school of thought can be applied to Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. Both reached the levels of "Fame" that jumps out at you. They did things never done before. I don't have to even think about what Big Mac and Sosa did.

If you did back and look you'd see Sosa hit over 30 home runs 11 times (10 consecutive), while Dawson hit over 30 homers three times in a 21-year career. Sosa hit over 40 home runs seven times. He hit 66, 63, and 64 home runs in '98, '99 and '01 and DIDN'T LEAD THE LEAGUE. (I'm simply looking at the record book, this is not commentary on steroids.)

HOF criteria #1.1: A sub-division of the first school - You can't tell the story and history of baseball without this player. Examples: Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, McGwire and Sosa, Roger Clemens, Bonds. Those are a few omissions that make it in with this argument. I think we could get all the major details of Major League Baseball history without hearing Bert Blyleven's name.

HOF criteria #2: You get in based on career numbers and overall contributions to the game. With this, you pour over stats. You compare to others in the Hall of Fame. You use common sense. This is where having the fifth most strikeouts of all time, to go along with 287 wins, nearly 5,000 innings and 22 years of service pays off. Rafael Palmeiro, Sosa and Rose come to mind with this school of thought.

Dawson and Blyleven have career numbers that, if you look at them long enough, wear you down. Blyleven more so than Dawson, based on sheer volume of numbers. Dawson was a very good player but one season with 49 home runs and 137 RBIs shouldn't put you in.

I look at all schools of thought when determining my vote. I believe I would have done what the voters did in this case with Blyleven - looked at numbers for 10+ years, waited until time was running out, and voted him in. Dawson, I'm not sure I could have gotten there, unless in the 15th year, you simply say 'Why not?'

The Hall of Fame is the ultimate career accomplishment, so I know why Blyleven was so vocal about wanting in. I understand his motives. The strikeouts got him in, which means that big breaking curveball had a big role in Sunday's induction. I hope the 14-year wait was worth it.

Cy Young Got How Many Votes?

Seaver: Highest percentage

USA Today showed the highest and lowest baseball Hall of Fame voting percentages this week in its "Snapshots" corner on page one of sports. It blew me away. Voting for the Hall of Fame can be tough, especially now with so many "PED" and "cheating" scandals to wade through. There are certain people, however, who need no thought at all.

Let's look at the top five highest percentages:

1. Tom Seaver (1992) - 98.84%
2. Nolan Ryan (1999) - 98.79%
3. Cal Ripken Jr. (2007) - 98.53%
4. Ty Cobb (1936) - 98.23%
5. George Brett (1999) - 98.19%

All no-doubt Hall of Famers, for sure. But this list (complete list of votes and percentages here) raises so many questions. 

First, why aren't there any receiving 100 percent of the vote? There was really a writer out there with the balls to think Nolan Ryan didn't deserve to be in the Hall? In fact, there were six who didn't include him on their list.

Some people didn't vote for Ruth

Why isn't Babe Ruth at the top with 100 percent of the votes? Ruth received 95.1 percent of votes in 1936, the first year of voting, the same as Honus Wagner but less than Ty Cobb. (Both Cobb and Ruth should have gotten 100 percent.) Eleven of the 226 ballots excluded Ruth that year. He must have pissed a few of the writers off at some point because not voting for him just doesn't make sense. Not only were his 714 career home runs more than some franchises at the time, he also hit .342 for a career, in case you forget. And we shouldn't forget his 94-46 pitching record with a 2.28 ERA in 1,221 innings pitched. 

Let's move to the next year, 1937. Only three players were elected that year, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker and Denton True "Cy" Young. You know, the guy who holds unbreakable pitching records like career wins (511), innings pitched (7,355) and games started (815). Well, he barely made it. Young is sixth from the bottom on percentage of votes all-time - 76.12 percent. Ryne Sandberg got a better percentage in 2005. Only 153 of 201 voters thought Cy Young should be in the Hall of Fame. And that was an INCREASE from the first vote the previous year when he got less than 50 percent. 

It's amazing to see the voting of players that are, without question, the greatest players in the history of the game. Joe DiMaggio? Only 88 percent. Maybe the almighty Baseball Writers' Association of America had some sort of grudge against these guys like there is today. I don't know, it was 50, 60, 70 years ago. I also don't care. The only thing I know is what they did on the field and the stories that have been told. 

I can only imagine people in another 50 years who are looking back on, what can only be assumed, ridiculous voting percentages coming up for greats like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, two of the best players to ever play. If it took Lefty Grove, a 300-game winner, three tries and then only got 76.4 percent, it's not hard to see voters trying to make a point on Clemens.

It's either yes or no when it comes to the Hall of Fame. The philosophy that seems to fit best is "if you even have to think about it, no." (Thank you, Skip Bayless.) It's just a quick yes or no. No thought, no debate. Ted Williams? Yes! Joe DiMaggio? Yes! Cy Young? Yes! Bert Blyleven? Well, I don't know, let me look at his ---- No! Barry Bonds? Yes!

Maybe it's a lost cause to think people will get the voting "right" during the much-debated "Steroid Era." I mean, 20 voters didn't think Ted Williams should be in the Hall of Fame his first year. And that's unacceptable. So is not letting in the greats of the game. 

*I also feel Joe Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame. Despite what the courts may have said and testimony there may have been, he still performed at a high level during that Black Sox World Series and was an all-time great. 

**And yes, Pete Rose should be in, too. 

Who To Vote For?

The 2011 Hall of Fame voting ended when the ball dropped at midnight. With the new players added to this year's ballot, another debate begins about who should be allowed in the halls of Cooperstown. If I have a vote, Rafael Palmeiro is on my ballot.

3020 hits, 569 HR, 1855 RBI

The "Steroid-Era" now lets voters play judge and jury when it comes to some of the greatest baseball players' legacy. Unfortunately, some of the best players won't get in based on a culture Major League baseball provided, and pretty much encouraged.

Mark McGwire, Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell are all on the ballot and none of them are getting the votes any time soon. Those three, one admitted user, one caught with syringes and one suspected user, don't have the same on-field credentials as Palmeiro, however.

The case against Palmeiro is his failed drug test in 2005 five months after telling Congress, "Let me start by saying this: I have never used steroids. Period." Based on that alone many will feel he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. He played the majority of his career in Texas and Baltimore, two organizations that produced many "steroid users," according to reports, admissions and tests. The failed test, which he still defends as a "tainted B12 shot," was in 2005. Does that mean he used steroids his entire career? Perhaps, but there's not proof of that.

The case for his induction, based on what he did on the field, is even stronger. The numbers speak for themselves. One of only four players (Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Eddie Murray) in history with 500 home runs and 3000 hits. He's tied for sixth all-time in extra base hits (1192). His 1855 RBI is 15th all-time, his 569 home runs is 12th. A .288 career hitter with more walks than strikeouts over 20 seasons and 2831 games. The numbers say first-ballot Hall of Famer.

I'd vote for him. Period.

Are those numbers "inflated" by steroid use? Probably. But the failed test came in his last year not the heart of his career. It didn't come in the 90s because no one was tested at that time. My point on all "steroid users" is this: The league didn't care prior to 2004. Its head was buried in the sand on steroid use. Why are they trying to punish people 10-15 years after the fact? And the only ones getting punished and ostracized are the BEST players. The players who carried the league for 10-20 years during some tough times. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro.

It's MLB grasping at straws and trying to cover its own backside. The writers and voters feel "cheated" and "lied to," like they cared when home runs were flying out of the park and people were actually interested in the league. These voters feel like if they don't vote for them they're doing people a favor. I'm tired of people talking about "integrity" and "character." This isn't the Morality Baseball League. For my vote, if you were a Hall of Fame player on the field with Hall of Fame numbers, you go into the Hall of Fame. Period.