It was announced today that Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar will be inducted into the Hall of Fame. That's pretty nice on its own. I love the fact that Roberto will most likely be the first player inducted to represent Toronto. Alomar was a definite star for the 1990's. But Blyleven...that's where I have a problem.
Every decade has a pitcher that achieves greatness not through records broken, but for being consistent and being good at his job for a long period of time. That being said, these players are usually scoffed at if and when they're inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Bruce Sutter would be an example. He was a decent closer for his career, but he only had a 10-11 year career. Bruce was okay, but was he really a Hall of Famer? Fergie Jenkins is another example, and I know some of you may disagree on this one. Over 20 seasons, Fergie displayed his talents on the mound, but he didn't break records or really leave a lasting imprint. Eventually he went to the Hall, and while some people agreed, others were baffled. There are a lot of pitchers that fall under this category, but one particular person was a big offender- Bert Blyleven.
Bert was a good 2nd or 2st man in the rotation for 20+ years. He had a blazing fastball and had a lot of strikeouts. But, now that Felix Hernandez has won the Cy Young, do wins and strikeouts really matter? Blyleven never really did anything huge, and he was never a huge household name. He laid low and broke a few records, placing on some strikeout lists. But he isn't like Nolan Ryan or Tom Seaver, and was a huge superstar from the start.
Bert Blyleven...I really don't see the point to putting him in bronze. While Roberto Alomar was dominant at his position for an entire decade, Bert sped along mainly using strikeouts. But at the end of the day...I'm not the one writing the ballots and making the decision.
Congratulations to Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven on your nomination. I'm calling Bagwell and Edgar for next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment