Bert Blyleven - 287 wins, Tommy John - 288 wins and Jack Morris - 254 wins are NOT, help me out here...?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bunniji01.shtml
2007-10-29 15:57:37 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Writers have their own criteria in judging who is Hall of Fame worthy, and who just doesn't belong in their estimation.
Blyleven, probably because he only had one 20-win season, and, of course, in this generation, 300 wins is thought of as an automatic induction, and writers have tended to be pretty particular in excluding pitchers who fell just a bit short. He also didn't win a Cy Young award, which is arguably the main reason why Burt isn't in Cooperstown right now...
Tommy John, fell short of 300 wins, extended his career too long with ineffective results.
Jack Morris, perhaps because his career ERA is nearly 4...even though he was the premiere postseason pitcher of his day, the ERA is going to hurt - plus he didn't win a Cy Young award, which figures to be another difficulty to overcome for the HoF.
It's a good point in wondering about Bunning, though...especially considering the number of pitchers who were at the best throughout the 1960's, and all...
2007-10-29 16:11:11 · answer #1 · answered by Adam 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no problem with Bunning being in the HOF, he was a highly effective and good pitcher during the late 50's and 60's, Don Drysdale got in with only 209 wins,neither Gibby or Catfish had 300 either...all were great pitchers who stood out during thier era. The old veterans committee put him in and that was thier right...and they didnt make that bad of a call. John, Blyleven, Morris and you left out Jim Kaat with 283 wins...should be in. Blyleven is being stonewalled cause he was a flake and a boat rocker, but it really shouldnt be the reason hes kept out.there are also some good hitters who should be in, mainly Gil Hodges and Ron Santo. Lets just hope that the HOF corrects these errors and admits these guys to the Hall
2007-10-30 03:39:26 · answer #2 · answered by allenmontana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pitchers are more than just wins.
Bunning was inducted by the old edition (now abolished, and good riddance) of the Veterans Committee, which was well-established as having more lenient standards than the baseball writers do.
Plus Bunning was then a US Representative and is now a sitting US Senator, and it never hurts to have a little bit of political influence in one's corner. As MLB has now and again had to lobby to preserve its anti-trust exemption, while his seat may not have factored into the VC's decision, it surely hasn't worked against that cause.
2007-10-29 23:03:59 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Neither Bunning nor the other 3 pitchers you mantioned belong in the Hall.
2007-10-30 11:41:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not mere wins, but what he did with the wins.
Also understand he was selected by the Veteran's Committee
2007-10-29 23:05:08 · answer #5 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He won a 100 games in each league (not easy to do) He also pitched a perfect game.
2007-10-30 04:12:12 · answer #6 · answered by Lefty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the HOF is about politics, not talent. For example, Bill Mazeroski (you gotta be kidding), Phil Rizzuto, Lary Doby (only reason is he's first black in AL), and many others. Roger Maris' stats compare favorably to Doby, yet ????
2007-10-29 23:02:59 · answer #7 · answered by Bill 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋