needs to be changed. the whole thing is stupid for multiple reasons. you got writers not voting for henderson. you got people voting for jay bell etc. ron santo not getting in is pathetic. people saying him playing with diabtes shouldnt be a determining factor for his inclusion in the hall. To which I say, “why not”? besides the fact his numbers were a good enough reason him playing with a handicap, so to speak, like that is all the more reason among others.

dawson—not a hall of famer?? ridiculous to say the least.

ahh I better stop the whole hall of fame voting process makes me mad.

Tommy John was a pioneer in baseball — having the surgery that is now named after him. When he had it, he was a ten-year veteran of medium talent, and there were no guarantees he’d pitch at all again.

Instead, he threw 15 more years, and arguably was better after. He finished 2nd in Cy Young voting twice, won 20 games three out of four years in the late 70’s, and was a key part of five postseason teams.

He finished 12 wins short of 300; if he’d had those 12 more he’d have been in long ago. I think Tommy John is a no-brainer Hall of Famer, for his numbers AND the surgery.

is not a HOFer, unless you want to put him in for the surgery.

Your points:

1. John pitched in a four-man rotation almost his entire career. Blyleven only did for about half of his. It was much easier to win 20 in a four man rotation than in a five man. Blyleven did win 19 games once and 17 games five times.

2. John pitched most of his career for the Dodgers and Yankees. It’s natural that he’d get more Cy Young votes than a guy who pitched most of his career with the Twins and the Indians.

3. John and Blyleven won almost the exact same number of games and Blyleven did it in four fewer seasons. That’s kind of important, isn’t it?

Here are some other points of Blyleven over John.

1. Despite pitching most of his career for the Dodgers and Yankees, Tommy John never pitched for a World Series Champion. Bert Blyleven won two World Series—one with the Pirates and one with the Twins. Blyleven was 2-1 in the World Series. John was 0-3.

2. Blyleven’s ERA over his career was 3.31. John was 3.34. Sounds close, right? Except that John started his career in the 1960s, also known as the “Second Dead Ball Era.” One year John’s 1.98 ERA was only good enough for 5th in the American League.

John’s ERA+, adjusted for ballparks and eras, is 110. Very good, but Blyleven’s was 118.

3. Tommy John’s career strikeouts: 2245. Blyleven: 3701, good enough for fifth all-time. John relied a lot more on his defense.

4. Bert Blyleven: 60 shutouts—ninth on the all-time list. Tommy John: 46, 26th on the all-time list.

Don’t get me wrong—Tommy John was a great pitcher. He was a better pitcher than guys sitting in the Hall of Fame right now, although most of those were 60s and 70s Veterans Committee mistakes. But Bert Blyleven was a much better pitcher than John was.

It wouldn’t be a travesty if John got in. But he falls just short in my estimation. It is a travesty that Blyleven is still waiting.

I think there might be a special recognition area for people who have made non playing contributions to the game. If there isn’t it would be a good idea.

The doctor who invented the TJ surgery would be a good candidate for this group.