The title of this post is very simple. In any sport, you are either a Hall of Famer or you aren't.
If Bert Blyleven wasn't a Hall of Famer in 1996, he isn't a Hall of Famer in 2011. His numbers never changed and his dominance during his time stayed the same. Therefore, putting him into the Hall of Fame would be ridiculous. If you believe he's a Hall of Famer and have thought so since the day he retired then you are entitled to your opinion. But over time, a guy shouldn't become a Hall of Famer when none of his numbers have changed, right?
Now I'd vote for Roberto Alomar. Clearly some writers felt he wasn't good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. But his situation is much different from Blyleven's; Bert's percentage wasn't even close when he went on the ballot. Robbie was so close that all he needed was a few more lazy writers who have taken their vote for granted to wake up and actually VOTE!
Nowadays there's a line drawn over integrity of the game. Those who have (allegedly for some) used performance enhancers may have a tougher time getting into the Hall of Fame. I understand that. Writers will also keep certain players who didn't treat them well out of the Hall too. I believe Albert Belle should be in the Hall of Fame. I don't care what kind of person he was, he dominated in the 1990's. He hasn't been linked to steroids. He was one of the most feared hitters in baseball. His personality may have rivaled Ty Cobb, but you can't ignore his dominance with the bat. He should be in.
Last I checked, it said Cooperstown Baseball Hall of Fame. They might as well change the name to Hall of Very Good.
All Star