You can understand why some baseball writers never particularly liked Bert Blyleven. “I’m not going to kiss the asses of the writers,” Blyleven said a few years back. “I put numbers up that are Hall of Fame numbers. Until they recognize that, you can only look at January 6th and say ‘it’s another year.’” Well, it’s now January 6 — and Blyleven is finally in the Hall of Fame. The announcement came yesterday as Blyleven (this was his fourteenth time on the ballot) and second sacker Roberto Alomar (who was picked on 90 percent of the ballots) were elected to the Hall and will be inducted in July. There’s been a continuing and surprising argument over Blyleven’s qualifications, but there’s never been any question (or, at least, we think so) over his abilities. The most compelling “case for” was made in December 2004 by Rich Lederer, who quoted Blyleven critics as giving three reasons why the slick righty “didn’t belong”: he didn’t win a Cy Young award, he wasn’t a dominant pitcher in his era — and he wasn’t any better than Tommy John or Jim Kaat. Lederer demolished these arguments.

Blyleven’s stats are impressive. He’s tied for sixth all-time in the number of 200-strikeout seasons, is ninth in career shutouts, is fifth all-time in career strike outs (who would have guessed that), was third most on the day he retired (behind Nolan Ryan and Walter Johnson), won 38 1-0 ball games, and has stats similar to Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Ferguson Jenkins, Tom Seaver and Early Wynn — all of whom are in the Hall. Longevity is always an important, if incomplete, “metric” of pitching solidity, and Blyleven had it: 22 seasons, a 3.31. ERA. He was in the top ten in strikeouts in 14 seasons and was in the top ten in innings pitched in 11 — in two of those seasons he led his league. The question is not whether Blyleven deserves to be in the Hall, but why he wasn’t in sooner. Oddly, perhaps, I’d pick 1985 as his best season, even though he was traded by Cleveland to Minnesota that year: he threw in 37 games, completed 24 of them, and led the league in innings pitched and strikeouts.

So why did it take Blyleven fourteen years to reach the Hall? My sense is that if Blyleven had played in New York (or even Oakland), he wouldn’t have had to wait so long. This has nothing to do with “big team, big city” preferences (well, as least I don’t think so) — but rather to that fact that Blyleven consistently pitched for mediocre teams and received terrible run support. As one statistician has noted: from 1970 to 1977, Blyleven notched 82 quality starts (two earned runs or less in six innings, three earned runs or less in 7, 8, or 9 innings — 4 earned runs or less in 9+). In those starts he compiled a 2.19 ERA. His record? 0-53! In 1974, for instance, Blyleven (17-17 for the year) was 17-9 in 27 games and 0-8 in the others. In those 0-8 games he posted an ERA of 1.80. It would be tough to run those numbers over all of baseball’s pitchers post-1900, but I would bet they’re damned near unprecedented.

But what the hell: let’s suppose that the pro-Blyleven crowd actually has a point — that Bert was late to the prom because he didn’t pitch in New York (or Boston, or Atlanta — or even Oakland). The only way to show that that might be true is to compare him to Hall of Famers who did, but whose numbers are comparable or (arguably) worse. Like? Like Catfish Hunter: who won fewer games (224 vs. 287), had fewer strikeouts (2012 vs 3701), fewer shutouts (42 vs. 60),  and fewer complete games (181 vs. 242). Of course, Hunter won a Cy Young, and Blyleven didn’t. But then again, a Cy Young is given out by baseball writers — the same cadre that kept the big righty out of the Hall all of these years.

All is forgiven in Boston: late on Wednesday night, the Boston Globe reported that “the Nation” had inked a contract with Tampa Bay Rays’ uber-star Carl Crawford. The Globe says that Crawford will become a Red Sox for seven years and $142 million. Outside of Cliff Lee and Jayson Werth, Crawford was the class of the 2010 free agent class, hitting .307 with 19 home runs and 47 stolen bases. The Red Sox and Crawford haven’t exactly had the best relationship; back in May of 2009 (Red Sox fans will surely remember), Crawford stole six bases on the Red Sox — in what one baseball site headlined as “Grand Theft Boston.” The Red Sox were not pleased, whining (note: the Nationals complain, the Tiants whine) that Crawford stole his sixth base unnecessarily. The one palliative that Red Sox fans can point to (now that Crawford is in the fold) is that the loudest complaint came from former Red Sox hurler Brad “Bad” Penny, a veteran of the Massachusetts Penal League. Penny, who some people describe as “a southern gentleman,” wasn’t so much ripped at Crawford’s sixth steel, as he was at his fifth — when Crawford stole third, off of . . . Penny. After the game, however, Red Sox skipper Terry Francona dampened the complaints, explaining that Crawford is really fast.

What’s really juicy about the Crawford signing is that the reporter who broke it, Peter Abraham, wrote back at the beginning of the season that if he were the Red Sox — and was given a choice between Jayson Werth and Crawford — he’d take Werth. While this doesn’t exactly relegate “the Nation” to the status of province, it sheds light on all those nasty comments made about Mike Rizzo for signing the former Phillie. The signing of Crawford should not be unexpected: it reflects Boston’s yen for getting in on the action, particularly if they feel that the dreaded pinstripers are somehow gaining on them (or are extending their furlongs, as the case may be). After all, Soxologist Peter Gammons was saying on MLB Network, just hours before the deal was reported, that the Yankees (being the Yankees) were going hard after Cliff Lee. With C.C. already in the fold, the Yanks would have to be the odds-on favorites to take the A.L. East. The Red Sox deal also eliminates the Belinskis from the Crawford sweepstakes, despite the fact that Crawford was considered a natural fit for L.A., and despite the fact that the Angels’ front office was leveraging their front-runner status by telling everyone that a Crawford-to-the-Angels deal was nearly a lock.

But for all the talk about Werth and Crawford and the Red Sox and Lee, there’s a bit of suck-in-your-stomach bad news here. The loss of Crawford, and the probable trade of starter Matt Garza, probably puts Tampa out of the running for any late season berth. And the deal highlights the struggles of mid-size and small market teams (like the Rays), who (while they might catch lightning, maybe once or twice) are eventually relegated to being development squads for the likes of Hal and Theo. Just ask Kansas City, which monopolized the other headline today: for signing all-world-average, but really cheap, Jeff Francoeur. You have to wonder: will that be tomorrow’s headline in The Kansas City Star? Here’s the latest: according to MLB Trade Rumors, Boston’s deal for Crawford won’t become official until Friday, after Crawford passes his physical.

The fallout from the Jayson Werth signing began even as Mike Rizzo walked from the microphone in Orlando, Florida. ESPN’s Keith Law wrote that the Nationals’ Jayson Werth contract “looks like a panic deal” — and then called Mike Rizzo’s decision to sign him “irresponsible.” Buster Olney also slammed the Nats, pointing out that the Nats spent more on Werth in one throw-of-the-dice than they had on all other free agents in the franchise’s history. And then, of course, Philadelphia sportswriters weighed in, praising the Phillies’ front office for letting the Nats sign Werth because it shows just how smart Amaro & Company are. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Phil Sheridan is typical: the Phillies, he wrote,”would have been fools to give Werth the deal the Nationals gave him.” Not to be outdone, the Daily News’ Phil Conlin also slammed the Nats — writing that “Scott Boras sold the Washington Nationals the Brooklyn Bridge yesterday.” And then there was new Mets’ GM Sandy Alderson, who praised the Mets for what they didn’t do: “Makes some of our contracts look pretty good,” he said, and then added (with a sly smile), “I thought they were trying to reduce the deficit in Washington.”

It’s quite possible that Law, Olney & Company are right: Jayson Werth could be a bust, could shatter an ankle, might not fit with the Nats. But there’s an edge to these comments that goes well beyond dollars and cents. Let’s start with Law, who’s a known quantity. The ESPN columnist was criticized back in 2006 for trading on the insider knowledge he gained as a special assistant in Toronto for former GM J.P Ricciardi. When Law landed at ESPN he immediately published privileged details of the Vernon Wells-Ricciardi contract talks, quoting Wells as saying that he had “no intention” of signing a contract extension in Toronto. Wells called him a liar, Ricciardi called him “an idiot” — and Wells is still in Toronto after signing one of the most overpriced contracts in the history of the game. All of that might not mean anything, except that Law and Ricciardi (who’s now in New York, working for Alderson), know damn well that Wells signed a deal with the Jays in 2006 for the same amount in both years and money that Mike Rizzo just gave to Jayson Werth. Which is only to say that Law doesn’t give a damn for the Nats — he’s refighting his battle with Ricciardi.

And Olney? The ESPN commentator is so over-the-moon about the Yankees and Red Sox that even his mates on the desk of “Baseball Tonight” interrupt him. For Buster, the Red Sox and Yanks are always one and two. The best rotation in baseball? The Red Sox. And number two? The Yankees. This last year, Olney’s list of the top five rotations in baseball didn’t include the Giants. Or the Phillies. Which is not to even mention Sandy Alderson who is, admittedly, one of the best brains in the game. But Alderson’s comment is puzzling: the Werth deal makes some of the Mets contracts look good? Really? And which ones would those be?

And finally, let’s admit it. Some of the criticism of the Nats is just human nature — excusable perhaps, but disturbing. Philadelphia’s Sheridan strikes me as the kind of guy who likes it when others fail: it gets him ahead in the pecking order. Sheridan calls the Nats a “dead-on-arrival franchise,” a smarmy phrase that’s said with such elan that you can’t help thinking he really hopes it’s so. He’s a baseball writer, but he sounds like someone who can’t stand it that something good might be happening elsewhere. For Bill Conlin, meanwhile, the Werth signing has national (not Nationals) implications, as it “comes at a time when the economy remains in the tank.” Then too, he turns over his own Sheridan-like card, calling the Nationals “the last place bleeping Washington Nationals.” Really? The last place “bleeping” Washington Nationals? This isn’t analysis, it’s hostility. In the final analysis (Conlin tells us), the Werth deal is not only anti-Philadelphia (Conlin says he’s happy the Phillies didn’t pony up the money — but he doesn’t mean it), it’s un-American. Now there’s a good one: Mike Rizzo should have let the Angels sign Werth — it would have been more patriotic.

If there’s any lesson to be drawn here (and I’m not sure there is) it might simply be this: the plantation mentality that once ruled baseball (when guys like Charlie Comiskey made the big bucks, and the players made nothing) is still firmly in place. But now the plantation mentality is between the rich-get-richer fat cats and the mouth-on-the-exhaust franchises who “don’t know their place.” Don’t kid yourself. If Theo Epstein had signed Jayson Werth for $126 million, Keith Law would have called him a genius. If the Steinbrenners had done so, Buster would have told us that the Yankees had proved, once again, why they’re the greatest franchise in baseball. And if Philadelphia had done so, Sheridan and Conlin would have told us that Ruben Amaro’s favorite song was “America The Beautiful.”

Texas lefty Cliff Lee should know: Washington is a great place to settle down and raise your kids, a wonderful city filled with monuments and parks and good restaurants. As for the high cost of living, the Lerners should be able to take care of that. While free agency is still a long ways off, on Monday night in New York, Cliff Lee showed why he’s not only the premier free agent pitcher for 2011, but the best southpaw in baseball. In eight innings of work, Lee gave up just two hits, struck out 13 and held the Yankees scoreless over eight innings in hurling the Texas Rangers into a 2-1 game lead in the ALCS. “Awesome,” Texas outfielder Nelson Cruz said. “It’s unbelievable … he’s pitching at the highest level possible.” Lee threw 122 pitches, 82 of them for strikes, in taming the Yankee line-up. This was no fluke — Lee struck out Derek Jeter three times and Mark Teixeira twice and was so dominating that Rangers’ hitters were almost a sidelight. Still, the Rangers accounted for eight runs in routing the Empire, as Josh Hamilton (2-5, two RBIs) and Michael Young (3-5, .400 in the post season) showed why they’re among the most dangerous hitters in baseball. “This is one of those games you try to forget about as soon as possible,” Yankee captain Jeter said after the Texas win.

The arm of Roy Oswalt and the bat of Jimmy Rollins gave the Philadelphia Phillies a 6-1 win at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, knotting the NLCS at one game apiece. Oswalt’s performance was just what Philadelphia needed, after the Giants defeated the Phillies in the NLCS opener on Saturday. The former Houston righty dominated the Giants’ line-up, giving up only three hits in eight innings while striking out nine. The game also marked a sweet retribution, of sorts, for struggling Phillies’ shortstop Jimmy Rollins, whose 7th inning double off the right field wall plated three and gave Rollins four RBIs for the night. Rollins — who has been fighting injuries — had trouble throughout the 2010 campaign, hitting just .243 while missing over 70 regular season games. The series now heads to San Francisco, where Philadelphia and San Francisco’s third set of starters (Matt Cain and Cole Hamels) will face off on Tuesday.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: We belatedly note that the Internet Baseball Writers Association (Washington, D.C. Chapter) has published their 2010 Player Acheivement Awards. As voters in this polling, CFG notes with pride that Ryan Zimmerman was named the winner of the Goose Goselin Award for Most Valuable Player, Livan Hernandez won the Walter Johnson Starting Pitcher of the Year Award and Adam Dunn won the Frank Howard Slugger of the Year Award. Arguably, Adam Dunn could have easily outpolled Ryan Zimmerman for the Goselin Award. He was our choice . . . Our thanks for the Association for its continued good work and to Dave Nichols for organizing this . . .there’s a lot of chatter in the “Natsmosphere” about whether the Nats might be contenders in the Cliff Lee sweepstakes. Lee would give the Nationals something they’ve never had: a front line strikeout pitcher who could give the team a once-every-four-days outing that would make the team an automatic .500 contender in the soft N.L. East. But is it possible . . . ?

Our bet here is that Mike Rizzo will use a gaggle of prospects to land a middle-of-the-pack starter, eschewing an expensive arm like Lee. Still, such a trade could yield a surprise — the landing of a former front line pitcher (Gil Meche, for instance — though he’s still owed $11 million) who needs a change of scene. There are no easy pickins: Zack Greinke is said to be available, but you can bet he’ll be expensive and, like Meche, he’s owed a sack of money ($27 million over the next two years). Or the Nats could fish for someone who’s worn out their home welcome, but could be straightened out. Someone like A.J. Burnett, who’s at the end of the line in New York, but still has the stuff necessary to be a front-of-the-rotation guy. Working through the possibilities shows you just how limited Rizzo’s options actually are. Take Burnett. He’s aging, very expensive and can block any proposed trade. And if the Nats came up in any discussions we assume he would . . .

We’re still partial to Jon Garland. Garland wouldn’t cost an all-in; the problem is that he wants to stay on the left coast and he’s been a good addition in San Diego. So if what’s available in terms of pitching is just too expensive and you have a bit of money, what would you do? Our guess is that if you were to play the odds, you might want to bet that Mike Rizzo would find the possibility of signing someone like Carl Crawford, a free agent sparkplug who would fit in nicely in D.C., very tempting. Signing Crawford would make a player like Josh Willingham available on the market, in exchange for a solid arm or top prospect. Then too, Crawford is a star: aggressive, fast and dedicated, a player who could be a centerpiece in the outfield. Given the dirth of attractive free agent starting pitchers, bidding for Crawford makes sense; there’s little doubt that Crawford would put people in the seats.  Then too — and given that the Nationals probably will not sign Adam Dunn — the front office would have the money to land the soon-to-be former Ray, whose arrival would compensate for the loss of one of the team’s most popular players . . .Zimmerman and Crawford and Strasburg, oh my . . .

When he was introduced to the media as the new Yankees’ wunderkind, Mickey Mantle was asked whether he had a favorite Yankee as a boy playing ball back in Oklahoma. Flashing his lopsided grin, he nodded. He sure did, he said. The Yankee he admired most was “Stan Musial.” The Yankee brass scrambled to correct “The Mick,” who sat smiling, entertained by it all. What Mickey meant to say, Yankee G.M. George Weiss told the media, was that his favorite Yankee was Joe DiMaggio. Mickey happily complied and so it was: from that day forward, Mickey’s favorite Yankee was “the Yankee Clipper.” The Mantle-Musial anecdote (related with relish in Jane Leavy’s new bio of the Yankee great), might tell us all we need to know about Mantle and his grip on his own myth. Mantle was much more a savvy player of the New York media and much less the guileless country bumpkin than we might otherwise think. Thus: Mantle bathed in the sunlight of his role as “Mr. Yankee” while rolling his eyes at all the gabbing about his place in history — he just wanted to play baseball.

It’s not that Mantle didn’t love the Yankees and their history (he did — and diligently studied the lives of the Yankee greats), it’s that if Mantle had not played in New York he would have still be Mickey Mantle: with a prodigious home run swing (536 in all), a breathtaking OBP (.421 for his career), and an eye for driving in runs (1509 in 18 seasons). Which is simply to acknowledge that while Mantle’s place in baseball lore is underlined by all the attention he received in the Big Apple, his place in baseball is not a function of where he lived, but how he played. Which is why fans my age (that generation who actually saw Mantle play the game), tend to overlook the “other Mantle” that has gotten so much attention since his death — the drinking, brawling, promiscuous Mantle who was great but, because of how he lived, could have been so much greater.

We don’t care.

There is an idea abroad that the story of “the real Mickey Mantle” — the player who spent his post-game hours boozing and sleeping with women to whom he wasn’t married — has somehow diminished his greatness. That, when we millions of his admirers learned the real story behind “the boy with the lopsided grin,” we recoiled in disbelief and began to rethink our admiration for his feats. Really? Even as a kid, I could have told you that a handsome boy from Oklahoma with a bat in his hand probably lived life as fully off the field as he played it on the field. And that rather than being a man with a halo, The Mick was probably a man with a drink in his hand. So while the strength of Jane Leavy’s new book on Mantle is that it explores this point, its weakness is that Leavy is shocked when she discovers that one of baseball’s greatest players was a gin-drinking womanizer. It makes me want to scream: “don’t you get it?” The fact that Mantle was who he was doesn’t detract from his myth, it is his myth. So please . . . forget who you think Mickey Mantle might have been. If you want to find out who Mickey Mantle really was, do what every fan does — take a look at his numbers.

If the Washington Nationals were to play 162 games against the Atlanta Braves they might have a shot at a division title. The Nats dominance of the Tomahawks continued on Sunday, as Livan Hernandez (aided by a clutch single in the 7th from rookie shortstop Ian Desmond), won the second game of a three game tilt against the Braves — and notched their tenth win in 18 tries against the Atlanta Nine. The Braves must think they’re snake bit: the Nationals have dominated the Braves in 2010, the only team they seem to play well against. Hernandez was his normal masterful self in throwing six innings of two run baseball — though he left the game tied. His ERA now stands at a respectable 3.73 for the season, as he solidified his 2010 legacy as the best starter on a shaky Nats’ staff. Desmond’s hit in the seventh was the difference, scoring Willie Harris and Danny Espinosa.

Past A Diving Scutaro: The Red Sox-Yankees match-up in New York last night was a classic example of late season drama, as well as a kind of petri dish for what ails The Nation. The game seemed well in hand for Boston until the ninth, the result of an unusually strong start from the normally shaky Daisuke Matsuzaka, who gave the Bosox eight innings of four hit ball. This was not only Dice-K’s best season outing, it might well have been the best performance of his career. True: the former Saitama Seibu Lions star (btw: the Lions were saved from bankruptcy by Boston bucks shelled out for a look-see at Dice-K) had help from the otherwise brilliant Mariano Rivera in the top of the 9th. The normally shut-the-door closer collapsed against a patient Boston line-up, who victimized the Yanks with dink and dunk singles and four steals. The Red Sox plated two runs and went into the last half-frame with a 3-2 lead. When the wind whipped up and it began to rain, Yankees fans streamed from the park — the game was over, finished, lost.

Drum roll: In ambled Jonathan Papelbon to shut down the Yankees line-up in the ninth. It’s not like the Steinbrenners were shaking in their boots: you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows and you don’t need a scouting report to tell you to sit on Johnny’s splitter. Which is precisely what the batsmen for The Empire did, vengefully dinking and dunking the closer’s right-down-Broadway fastballs and happily banking his not-even-close free passes . . . and knotting the game at 3. Here was Papelbon’s no account (I-wish-my-splitter-actually-worked) line: single (Swisher), single (Teixeira), steal (Nunez), walk (Rodriguez) and single — Robinson Cano. With the game actually on the line, Papelbon threw like Dick Raditz, inducing a Posada strike out and Berkman fly. Too late.

When the Red Sox went quietly in the 10th, the game’s result seemed fated. “Francoma” had seen enough of Papelbon, and brought in Hideki Okajima (the pride of Kyoto) to face the Yanks in the 10th — inducing metaphorical teeth gnashing in the rain-soaked northeast. But the Red Sox made it interesting: after Curtis Granderson reached on a single, Brett Gardner bunted him over — and was safe at first. Granderson then took third on a throwing error steal (never mind, that’s five steals in just 1.5 innings!) and Okijima intentionally walked Jeter, loading the bases. It was a wise move. Marcus Thames grounded into a fielder’s choice, with Granderson thrown out at the plate. While the bases were still loaded, Okijima was sitting pretty. The Yanks were through the heart of their line-up, the game was still tied, and Hadeki was staring in at . . . ah . . . ah . . . Juan Miranda. You know — the .222 minor league prospect no-bat lots-of-speed Juan Miranda. So, with Gardner, Jeter and Thames dancing off the bases, what did Okajima do with Miranda?

He walked him.

(below: Juan Miranda mobbed by teammates after his walk-off walk)