Options
How Good Was Vida Blue?
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Another case for the baseball analytics mavens....how good was Blue as a player, putting aside his feet of clay?
0
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Blue would rank among a very large group of pitchers that I would describe as "good", but not great: Rick Reuschel, Frank Tanana, Dennis Martinez, Milt Pappas, Jerry Koosman, Jack Morris, Jim Perry, and dozens more. He would rank among that group, except for 1971. Blue was so great that season that it elevates him above that group into the ranks of the "very good"; his closest comparison is probably Dwight Gooden, or maybe Orel Hershiser.
Here's what I found;
1971, arguably the best start to a career ever. First half of season almost unhittable and unbeatable. Only Tom Seaver and Wilbur Wood were as good over all in 1971.
1972, Dropps to 151 innings pitched not in top 20 pitchers in MLB.
1973, Not in top 20 pitchers in MLB.
1974, Not in top 20 pitchers in MLB.
1975, #7 in A.L. in ERA. Barely makes top 20 pitchers in MLB in ERA+ and WHIP.
1976, Great season! Best pitcher in baseball except for the one year wonder of Mark Fidrych.
1977, Not in top 20 pitchers in MLB.
1978, Very nice season, somewhere around the 13th best pitcher in MLB, depending on the numbers you put importance on.
1979, Bad year for Vida.
1980, Bounces back very nicely , top 10 in MLB.
1981, Great season, not quite as good as 1976. He makes the top 10 in MLB. Ryan, Carlton, Seaver Blyleven Valenzuela were better.
1982-1985 Not in top 20 pitchers in MLB. Suspended for 1984 by the commissioner.
1986, Bounces back nicely, but not in top 20 pitchers in MLB, then retires.
He was the best (or close to it) pitcher in all of baseball twice, Three other times he was in the top 10. Seven times, however he was not in the top 20.
Borderline with a 108 REA+ and a but low(ish) innings pitched with 3300. Erratic career as well, no real sustained period of excellence. Was great in his rookie season, but then it took until 1976 to return to greatness. He was good in '75 and '78. He returned to nice form after a bad 1979 for a couple of years. Other than that he was a slightly above average pitcher.
You certainly could argue that he was as good, or better than, "Catfish" Hunter, but I'm not getting into that again.
Sam McDowell was great too, as was Mickey Lolich, they didn't make it in either and I would rank Blue in with these guys.
Agree with all of the above. The complication in ranking pitchers, usually more so than hitters, is that the pattern of their careers varies so widely (HOF-level pitchers, none of whom have been mentioned in either of our posts, do always have a sustained period of excellence that includes most of their career). Blue has the one HOF season, a few great seasons, and a bunch of so-so and bad seasons. But he ends up with a career that's more or less the same as Milt Pappas, who never had a great season, just a lot of consistent "good" seasons. I think Blue deserves to rank ahead of Pappas because Blue showed that he could be great, but anyone that ranks Pappas ahead of Blue is not wrong. They were both better pitchers than Catfish Hunter.
McDowell is a sad case. He was a HOF-level pitcher and could have gone on to be in the actual HOF except that drinking derailed his career before he was 30 years old. I'd rank him higher than Blue based on McDowell's sustained period of excellence (marred only a bit by an arm injury in '66-'67), but it's certainly reasonable to group them together. Fun fact: McDowell was my brother's favorite player, and we used to have a cake on his birthday.
I was a big A's fan when he broke into the league. At the time I couldn't believe how good he was that early in his career. The first half of the year he almost won 20 games and was unhitable. After that he was a good to very good pitcher, but nowhere near the level of excellence he had achieved initially.
I can't remember who the hitter was, but I remember reading (or hearing) an interview with a player who compared McDowell and Blue's fastballs. He said they were both great fastballs, but Blue threw a "heavy" ball, when you got good wood on it, it felt like you were hitting a lead ball. When you were able to connect with Sam's fast ball it felt "lighter".
Don't think this has any meaning as to who was the better pitcher, just thought it might be interesting since both are mentioned here.
McDowell sobered up and is/was counseling players with alcohol problems.
Sam McDowell, Sudden Sam as we always called him, probably drank because he was trapped on such a crappy Team!!! his career might have been much better if he would have played on a solid Team. the Indians in the 1960's had an owner(s) who couldn't afford to keep all his talent, it was either good pitching and no offense or good hitting and no pitching.
Sudden Sam was kept through it all.
Better than good, could have been great.