@Cakes said:
I am a firm believer in a stricter HOF. 1/4 of the current players would not be in there. It's not meant for very good players like Bert!
I mean come on with your BS about have I ever watched Baseball holier then though crap. I have watched and played a ton and Bert was never recognized as a dominant, future HOF player. He had 4 good/great seasons, and the rest are just average to good. If you take away the 4 good/great seasons and he wouldn't even be a .500 pitcher. His record would be 214 wins and 215 losses.
Let's not take anything away from a player and then say he was average.
Wins and losses is the worst way to determine if a pitcher is good or bad.
Instead, let's look at how many years Bert was in the Top 10 in some categories that indicate if he was great;
WAR for pitchers 13 times.
Strikeouts 15 times.
Strikeouts/Walks 16 times.
ERA 10 times.
Adjusted ERA+ 12 times.
Complete games 12 times.
WHIP 11 times.
Innings pitched 11 times.
Shutouts 10 times.
A little more than 4 good years.
Now let's compare some of his lifetime numbers to Steve Carlton;
Carlton ERA 3.22
Blyleven 3.31
Carlton ERA +115
Blyleven 118
Carlton WHIP 1.247
Blyleven 1.198
JAWS Carlton 72.2
Blyleven 72.4
Both pitchers were equal in that 63% of their starts were "quality".
Post season Carlton's record was 6-6.
Blyleven 's was 5-1.
Carlton is elected in his first year of eligibility with 95.6% of the votes.
Looks to me like Bert was a LOT BETTER than you give him credit for.
this is it. GREAT post. Bert was a fantastic pitcher. pitcher W-L is a horrible individual metric.
He was every bit as good as Carlton. He struck out almost as many and walked a lot less batters, with a better ERA+.
I didn't realize until just now how closely Blyleven's career matches Carlton's, and I reach the same conclusion: that Blyleven was slightly, but clearly, better.
I always liked Bert and saw a lot of him .
I kind of assumed Carlton was going to be a lot better and picked him at random to see how Bert stacked up against an all time great.
Was I ever surprised!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
I learned a long time ago that down the path of arguing with someone who leads off their side of the argument with W/L records lies nothing but pain, and when the rest of the argument relies on what other people think (awards, All Stars, etc.), the pain will be excruciating. Count me out, but I'm serious about teaching you how baseball works, if you decide you'd like to expand your knowledge into unfamiliar territory.
Also, regarding Win Shares, they don't really add much for pitchers since they depend almost entirely, as every meaningful pitcher stat does, on how many earned runs the pitcher allowed in his park/era context. Depending on how you weight peak vs. career, and how you view different eras, you can make adjustments in any number of reasonable ways, but the starting point for a "best pitcher" list is the career Adjusted Pitching Runs leader list on baseball-reference. It's measuring runs allowed in context, and measuring them over an entire career. The only pitchers who are in the top 40 who aren't in the HOF either aren't eligible (Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, and Greinke), cheated (Clemens), or have been royally screwed (Schilling, Kevin Brown).
you went and did it. ruined a halfway decent post by lumping Clemens in with "cheaters" It is lazy and untrue.
there are no failed tests, no admission and no evidence (unless you consider years-old syringes packed with bloody gauze, stored in a used beer can to be evidence).
The U.S. Government couldn't convict him and neither can you.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’ll get flamed by the analytics crowd for this observation, but suspect most of the older guys will agree.
As a baseball fan in the 70s, you knew you were watching a sure thing HoFer when Carlton pitched. Didnt feel the same about Blyleven.
Whether that matters one bit or not is entirely dependent on what you believe makes up a hall of fame.
That mostly has to do with the Phillies being in the hunt more often and Carlton being their ACE every year. Optics.
Carlton does have about three seasons that are better than Blyeveln's best season too, so his star did shine bright at its absolute brightest point, and there is some merit in this argument here.
Feelings and subjective viewpoints when watching a game aside, why should Steve Carlton get more HOF credit for pitching 9 innings and giving up three runs than Blyleven for also pitching 9 innings and giving up three runs?
He was every bit as good as Carlton. He struck out almost as many and walked a lot less batters, with a better ERA+.
I didn't realize until just now how closely Blyleven's career matches Carlton's, and I reach the same conclusion: that Blyleven was slightly, but clearly, better.
Now compare him to Ryan!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
I learned a long time ago that down the path of arguing with someone who leads off their side of the argument with W/L records lies nothing but pain, and when the rest of the argument relies on what other people think (awards, All Stars, etc.), the pain will be excruciating. Count me out, but I'm serious about teaching you how baseball works, if you decide you'd like to expand your knowledge into unfamiliar territory.
Also, regarding Win Shares, they don't really add much for pitchers since they depend almost entirely, as every meaningful pitcher stat does, on how many earned runs the pitcher allowed in his park/era context. Depending on how you weight peak vs. career, and how you view different eras, you can make adjustments in any number of reasonable ways, but the starting point for a "best pitcher" list is the career Adjusted Pitching Runs leader list on baseball-reference. It's measuring runs allowed in context, and measuring them over an entire career. The only pitchers who are in the top 40 who aren't in the HOF either aren't eligible (Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, and Greinke), cheated (Clemens), or have been royally screwed (Schilling, Kevin Brown).
You are arguing with yourself, like a fool! You must like to make stuff up and you clearly only read/comprehend what fits your argument. My posts on Bert went like this:
First Post - Ug, Blyleven should not be in the HOF, great candidate for the Hall of very good.
Second Post - I am a firm believer in a stricter HOF. 1/4 of the current players would not be in there. It's not meant for very good players like Bert! I mean come on with your BS about have I ever watched Baseball holier then though crap. I have watched and played a ton and Bert was never recognized as a dominant, future HOF player. He had 4 good/great seasons, and the rest are just average to good. If you take away the 4 good/great seasons and he wouldn't even be a .500 pitcher. His record would be 214 wins and 215 losses.
I see you like to argue, talk down to people, etc. I was actually in a discussion with others and just sharing an opinion.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’ll get flamed by the analytics crowd for this observation, but suspect most of the older guys will agree.
As a baseball fan in the 70s, you knew you were watching a sure thing HoFer when Carlton pitched. Didnt feel the same about Blyleven.
Whether that matters one bit or not is entirely dependent on what you believe makes up a hall of fame.
I'm an old timer too.
Didn't see much of Carlton, but all I heard about was 1972, and later his battle with Ryan for the all time strikeout title.
I ended up assuming he was great every year. He was not.
I did see a lot of Blyleven and his curve ball was practically unhittable, guys looked foolish against him.
Then I looked at Carlton's career;
His first 7 years he had 2 seasons with an ERA+ less than 100, and 3 with at or below 111. He was very good in 1969 with a 164 and of course in 1972 he was insanely good.
ALL of Bert's first 7 years had an ERA+ of at least 119, with a high of 156.
Expanding to 14 seasons, Carlton had 7 years with a 111 or lower ERA+, Blyleven had 2.
Carlton had 3 dominant and one unbelievable seasons out of 14 and 5 where he was not very good at all.
Blyleven had 3 dominant seasons out of 14 and one (maybe 2) where he wasn't very good.
The final 4 years worth looking at (I skipped Bert's 1982 where he pitched 20 innings), Bert was great every year with ERA+'s ranging between 128-146.
Carlton comes back with a high 151 and a low of 102.
Blyleven was a tremendously consistent GREAT pitcher, who never had that one unbelievable year.
Carlton was a LOT less consistent, but every 3 to 5 years came up with a fabulous year to make up for some real stinkers.
Post season performance is Blyleven by a MILE!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@GreenSneakers said:
The consistent condescending tone some people have during subjective arguments always amazes me.
Carry on.
I agree I had someone tell me " I would be happy to teach you how baseball works, if you're interested. "
What's ironic to me is that that same person probably wasn't very good at baseball.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
you went and did it. ruined a halfway decent post by lumping Clemens in with "cheaters" It is lazy and untrue.
there are no failed tests, no admission and no evidence (unless you consider years-old syringes packed with bloody gauze, stored in a used beer can to be evidence).
The U.S. Government couldn't convict him and neither can you.
Take a breath, man, and don't shoot the messenger. Obviously, the only reason that Clemens isn't in the HOF is that he is perceived to be a cheater. Just pointing that out, not trying to convict anybody.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
you went and did it. ruined a halfway decent post by lumping Clemens in with "cheaters" It is lazy and untrue.
there are no failed tests, no admission and no evidence (unless you consider years-old syringes packed with bloody gauze, stored in a used beer can to be evidence).
The U.S. Government couldn't convict him and neither can you.
Take a breath, man, and don't shoot the messenger. Obviously, the only reason that Clemens isn't in the HOF is that he is perceived to be a cheater. Just pointing that out, not trying to convict anybody.
in your post, you did not write "perceived" cheater, you wrote "(cheater)"
Perception is not necessarily reality. you should know that. It is lazy to continue parroting Lester Munson and ESPN's schtick all these years later.
@craig44 said:
in your post, you did not write "perceived" cheater, you wrote "(cheater)"
Perception is not necessarily reality. you should know that. It is lazy to continue parroting Lester Munson and ESPN's schtick all these years later.
Take another breath, man, and chill. What's the one-word description of why Clemens isn't in the HOF? It's "cheater". If it is your position that I am morally and legally required to file a brief summarizing the evidence for both sides whenever I refer to Clemens omission from the HOF, well, good luck with that. There is a group of people who have been excluded from the HOF because the voters think that they cheated; Clemens is in that group, and it's the same group Puddinhead Bonds is in, fairly or unfairly. If you have a problem with that, find some sportswriters to yell at, and leave me out of it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
He was every bit as good as Carlton. He struck out almost as many and walked a lot less batters, with a better ERA+.
I didn't realize until just now how closely Blyleven's career matches Carlton's, and I reach the same conclusion: that Blyleven was slightly, but clearly, better.
Now compare him to Ryan!
Completely unfair. That would be like comparing Dave Steib to Jack Morris. Ron Guidry to Catfish Hunter?
He was every bit as good as Carlton. He struck out almost as many and walked a lot less batters, with a better ERA+.
I didn't realize until just now how closely Blyleven's career matches Carlton's, and I reach the same conclusion: that Blyleven was slightly, but clearly, better.
Now compare him to Ryan!
Completely unfair. That would be like comparing Dave Steib to Jack Morris. Ron Guidry to Catfish Hunter?
Take a look!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Completely unfair. That would be like comparing Dave Steib to Jack Morris. Ron Guidry to Catfish Hunter?
Yeah, Nolan Ryan is my favorite player of all time and I like to remember all the great games he pitched over his remarkable career. And comparing him to Bert Blyleven just brings into focus how many not-great games Ryan also pitched.
It has been said that the HOF should be cut by 25%. That's a reasonable desire, and someone else might even want to see it cut by 50%. Either way, though, Bert Blyleven will still be there.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Blyleven was a tremendously consistent GREAT pitcher, who never had that one unbelievable year.
I disagree. 1973 was every bit as good as any season Koufax, for example, ever had.
I'm a big Bert guy, but I wouldn't go that far.
Carlton's 1972 was better, but then Steve had a bad year in '73 with nearly a 4.00 ERA.
Well sure it was. Also his 1980. But I wasn't comparing peak Blyleven to peak Carlton, but to peak Koufax.
Carlton's 1972 was almost certainly the best pitched season of the '70s, even better than Wood(!)'s 1971 and Seaver's 1973. I stand by my comparison of Blyleven to Koufax.
@craig44 said:
in your post, you did not write "perceived" cheater, you wrote "(cheater)"
Perception is not necessarily reality. you should know that. It is lazy to continue parroting Lester Munson and ESPN's schtick all these years later.
Take another breath, man, and chill. What's the one-word description of why Clemens isn't in the HOF? It's "cheater". If it is your position that I am morally and legally required to file a brief summarizing the evidence for both sides whenever I refer to Clemens omission from the HOF, well, good luck with that. There is a group of people who have been excluded from the HOF because the voters think that they cheated; Clemens is in that group, and it's the same group Puddinhead Bonds is in, fairly or unfairly. If you have a problem with that, find some sportswriters to yell at, and leave me out of it.
I think you would be in the top 3% least likely of all posters on this board to tell others to "Chill" or "take another breath" with all of your half-page condescending diatribes.
all you are doing is carrying on the PERCEPTION that Clemens is a "cheater"
I am very calmly pointing out that it is untrue and lazy.
@baz518 said:
Bert was great. Roger is a cheater. Bert deserves his spot in the Hall. Clemens deserves a spot.
I agree that Clemens deserves a spot. he is arguably the greatest to ever pitch a baseball.
as to your other assertion, prove it. If you allege that Clemens is a "cheater" then prove it. otherwise, you are simply speaking in opinion and conjecture.
all you are doing is carrying on the PERCEPTION that Clemens is a "cheater"
I am very calmly pointing out that it is untrue and lazy.
OK, then you tell me why Clemens isn't in the HOF. And then explain to me why your answer is different than my answer. This should be fun.
you are simply pushing forward a false narrative. it is lazy. your quote:
"The only pitchers who are in the top 40 who aren't in the HOF either aren't eligible (Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, and Greinke), cheated (Clemens), or have been royally screwed (Schilling, Kevin Brown)."
you made 3 categories: arent eligible, cheated and royally screwed. YOU are a part of the group lazily pushing forth a false narrative. If you cant prove he cheated (no one else has either) then he belongs in your group number 3. royally screwed.
Blyleven was a tremendously consistent GREAT pitcher, who never had that one unbelievable year.
I disagree. 1973 was every bit as good as any season Koufax, for example, ever had.
I don't see any way one can get to that conclusion.
Blyeleven in 1973 had 325 IP and an ERA+ of 156
Koufax in 1966 had 323 IP and an ERA+ of 190
When the gap is that big in ERA+ with the same amount of IP, and within a similar competitive era, there really is nothing else that can make up that ground to say that Blyelven had as good a year as Koufax.
all you are doing is carrying on the PERCEPTION that Clemens is a "cheater"
I am very calmly pointing out that it is untrue and lazy.
OK, then you tell me why Clemens isn't in the HOF. And then explain to me why your answer is different than my answer. This should be fun.
you are simply pushing forward a false narrative. it is lazy. your quote:
"The only pitchers who are in the top 40 who aren't in the HOF either aren't eligible (Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, and Greinke), cheated (Clemens), or have been royally screwed (Schilling, Kevin Brown)."
you made 3 categories: arent eligible, cheated and royally screwed. YOU are a part of the group lazily pushing forth a false narrative. If you cant prove he cheated (no one else has either) then he belongs in your group number 3. royally screwed.
I forgot your exact quote, but put forth your argument in regard to Piazza and the substances that were later banned, but weren't in his day. Does that make Piazza a cheater?
And is cheating even the right word? In the end, people are mad because players got a presumed unfair advantage over other players....so if Piazza was using a substance that was not banned in his time, but banned in a later time, then didn't Piazza get an unfair advantage over others too?
What is more interesting then, is if players did get an unfair advantage, and the most widely used method of comparing to one's peers is the best method, then what does that mean for players who did not use PED? Doesn't that make them better than what their batting line says?
If Derek Jeter did not cheat, then doesn't his OPS+ 'rise' because Bonds's OPS+ is being discounted?
Then how about someone like Kenny Lofton? Wouldn't his OPS+ then become 'higher' or more valued for the same reason as Jeter? That would be certainly enough to push Lofton over the threshold to get into the HOF.
@craig44 said:
you made 3 categories: arent eligible, cheated and royally screwed. YOU are a part of the group lazily pushing forth a false narrative. If you cant prove he cheated (no one else has either) then he belongs in your group number 3. royally screwed.
The people who are "royally screwed" are those that HOF voters don't perceive as HOF-level players but who obviously are. Curt Schilling headlines that group on this ballot, and Dick Allen headlines the group overall. Clemens is NOT in this group. The HOF voters know that Clemens career merits induction to the HOF, unless he cheated. They think he cheated. Clemens is in the "cheaters" group on the outside of the HOF looking in. Does he belong in that group? I don't know, you don't know, and the HOF voters don't know. But for the purpose of anything I've posted, it simply doesn't matter. Either way, as I defined the groups (no, you don't get to redefine my words), Clemens is a "cheater"; it is the only reason he isn't in the HOF.
And for the record, you have absolutely walked away with the trophy for "Most Offense Taken in a Purely Semantic Disagreement", and it's amusing to watch. I'll keep playing if you want to, but I'm not sure there are any more trophies you can win; not trophies you'd want to win, anyway.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Blyleven was a tremendously consistent GREAT pitcher, who never had that one unbelievable year.
I disagree. 1973 was every bit as good as any season Koufax, for example, ever had.
I don't see any way one can get to that conclusion.
Blyeleven in 1973 had 325 IP and an ERA+ of 156
Koufax in 1966 had 323 IP and an ERA+ of 190
When the gap is that big in ERA+ with the same amount of IP, and within a similar competitive era, there really is nothing else that can make up that ground to say that Blyelven had as good a year as Koufax.
I like Koufax's 1966 better than Bert's 1973.
If I recall, Koufax actually pitched well on the road that season.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
you made 3 categories: arent eligible, cheated and royally screwed. YOU are a part of the group lazily pushing forth a false narrative. If you cant prove he cheated (no one else has either) then he belongs in your group number 3. royally screwed.
The people who are "royally screwed" are those that HOF voters don't perceive as HOF-level players but who obviously are. Curt Schilling headlines that group on this ballot, and Dick Allen headlines the group overall. Clemens is NOT in this group. The HOF voters know that Clemens career merits induction to the HOF, unless he cheated. They think he cheated. Clemens is in the "cheaters" group on the outside of the HOF looking in. Does he belong in that group? I don't know, you don't know, and the HOF voters don't know. But for the purpose of anything I've posted, it simply doesn't matter. Either way, as I defined the groups (no, you don't get to redefine my words), Clemens is a "cheater"; it is the only reason he isn't in the HOF.
And for the record, you have absolutely walked away with the trophy for "Most Offense Taken in a Purely Semantic Disagreement", and it's amusing to watch. I'll keep playing if you want to, but I'm not sure there are any more trophies you can win; not trophies you'd want to win, anyway.
wrong.
the reason Schilling is not in the HOF is his mouth/political views. he is widely considered at least a top 3 all time post season pitcher. arguably the greatest. he has plenty of regular-season stats as well. Dick Allen was also known as one that the sports writers hated. this isnt 1985 anymore where all anyone looked at was rbi totals and if a player hit 500 HR. modern day sports writers know how good Allen was. he missed out originally because of his attitude. if they are "royally screwed" it is because sports writers are punishing them for those reasons, not because they dont think they were good enough. They are on the outside looking in because of the sportswriter's perceptions. the same holds true for Clemens. He is falsely perceived as a "cheater" no one has ever been able to prove it, and there has never been an admission of guilt.
Other players have either been proven to have used PED post-2005 (Palmiero, Arod, Manny) or admitted (also Arod) those are players who could be added to the "cheaters" group.
You are just being lazy, repeating things you always say.
As for your last comment, your whole backhanded insult schtick gets really old. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels this way. You do it often, and to many posters. It is not very endearing. Does it make you feel good somehow? It comes across as juvenile and condescending. you really should knock it off. its not a good look.
@craig44 said:
the reason Schilling is not in the HOF is his mouth/political views. he is widely considered at least a top 3 all time post season pitcher. arguably the greatest. he has plenty of regular-season stats as well.
I think you're right about Schilling, but that, obviously, doesn't change anything about Clemens who has been excluded from the HOF solely because he is in the "cheater" group, in the minds of the HOF voters. I could, I guess, create another group for "mouth and political views" solely for Schilling, but that seems excessive; I think it's simpler, and more accurate, to say he's been royally screwed. The distinction being that even if everything believed about Schilling were true, he would still deserve induction. If everything believed about Clemens were true, he would not.
This remains the single only point I have made, and since it is undeniably true your ever escalating level of offense in reaction to it is amusing (because it is bewildering). So I'll keep playing for as long as you want.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary, @craig44 and others... I am getting awfully tired of the inability to keep a debate about ballplayers from becoming personal. It happens over and over in spite of my repeated requests to keep personal attacks and innuendos out. If it doesn't stop then I will just start shutting down threads and banning members, which would be a shame because we have a lot of very knowledgeable people participating here.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
He was every bit as good as Carlton. He struck out almost as many and walked a lot less batters, with a better ERA+.
I didn't realize until just now how closely Blyleven's career matches Carlton's, and I reach the same conclusion: that Blyleven was slightly, but clearly, better.
Now compare him to Ryan!
So, as I said, that would be somewhat worse than shooting fish in a barrel. Just for fun I compared Ryan to three pitchers who have never been seriously considered for the HoF, Saberhagen, Cone, and Hamels.
Stands out that all three have much better ERA+ and Strikeout to Walk ratios, with Saberhagen and Hamels being much better in WHIP and Cone in the same neighborhood. Except for longevity, it's hard to make the case that Ryan was even as good as any of these guys.
I don't disagree with anything in your comparison - it's valid.
But there's another way to look at Ryan compared to Saberhagen, Cone, etc. that addresses the apples/oranges aspect of the length of their careers.
You can split Ryan's career into two careers of approximately the same length:
Ryan 1: 2,767 innings, ERA + of 129, adjusted pitching runs of 236
Saberhagen: 2,563 innings, ERA+ of 126, adj pitching runs of 253
Cone: 2,899 innings, ERA+ of 121, adj. pitching runs of 231
Hamels: 2,698 innings, ERA+ of 123, adj. pitching runs of 236
So Ryan had a career that was essentially the equal of any of those three.
But Ryan also had a second career (with a very different set of comparable pitchers):
Ryan 2: 2,614 innings, ERA + of 99, adj. pitching runs of -20
Mike Caldwell: 2,409 innings, ERA+ of 99, adj. pitching runs of -20
Bob Forsch: 2,795 innings, ERA + 0f 98, adj. pitching runs of -24
Steve Trachsel: 2,501 innings, ERA+ of 99, adj. pitching runs of -24
Is the value of Mike Caldwell's or Bob Forsch's or Steve Trachsel's career negative? I don't think that's a reasonable position; they were on major league rosters for a long time so MLB thought their careers had positive value. In fact, they were all just shy of being average pitchers, so just shy of half the pitchers in the league while they were pitching were worse than these guys.
So Nolan Ryan had the career of Sabrhagen/Cone/Hamels AND he had the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel.
Now, adding the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel doesn't exactly scream HOF, but my point is solely that it has some positive value, however small. If I'm ranking Ryan and Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels, I'm ranking Ryan at the top.
Now, none of this helps Ryan in a Blyleven comparison; Ryan's "second career" in that case is only 800 innings with adjusted pitching runs of -110, and an ERA+ of 72. That's below replacement level, and it has negative value. I don't think any MLB pitcher with an ERA+ of 72 has ever actually pitched 800 innings.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Now, none of this helps Ryan in a Blyleven comparison; Ryan's "second career" in that case is only 800 innings with adjusted pitching runs of -110, and an ERA+ of 72. That's below replacement level, and it has negative value. I don't think any MLB pitcher with an ERA+ of 72 has ever actually pitched 800 innings.
Stathead says John Coleman, even though he was essentially only a part-time pitcher after his rookie year. Weren't the 1880s amazing?
Modern record would have to be Héctor Noesí with (just) 423 innings.
I don't disagree with anything in your comparison - it's valid.
But there's another way to look at Ryan compared to Saberhagen, Cone, etc. that addresses the apples/oranges aspect of the length of their careers.
You can split Ryan's career into two careers of approximately the same length:
[Argument deleted]
I understand the argument and think that it's valid as far as it goes, but consider that it overvalues players with long, unspectacular careers. I mean we can likely do this to make Baines, or Kaat or Moyer look like really good players. I haven't tried, but I suspect it's possible.
I don't disagree with anything in your comparison - it's valid.
But there's another way to look at Ryan compared to Saberhagen, Cone, etc. that addresses the apples/oranges aspect of the length of their careers.
You can split Ryan's career into two careers of approximately the same length:
Ryan 1: 2,767 innings, ERA + of 129, adjusted pitching runs of 236
Saberhagen: 2,563 innings, ERA+ of 126, adj pitching runs of 253
Cone: 2,899 innings, ERA+ of 121, adj. pitching runs of 231
Hamels: 2,698 innings, ERA+ of 123, adj. pitching runs of 236
So Ryan had a career that was essentially the equal of any of those three.
But Ryan also had a second career (with a very different set of comparable pitchers):
Ryan 2: 2,614 innings, ERA + of 99, adj. pitching runs of -20
Mike Caldwell: 2,409 innings, ERA+ of 99, adj. pitching runs of -20
Bob Forsch: 2,795 innings, ERA + 0f 98, adj. pitching runs of -24
Steve Trachsel: 2,501 innings, ERA+ of 99, adj. pitching runs of -24
Is the value of Mike Caldwell's or Bob Forsch's or Steve Trachsel's career negative? I don't think that's a reasonable position; they were on major league rosters for a long time so MLB thought their careers had positive value. In fact, they were all just shy of being average pitchers, so just shy of half the pitchers in the league while they were pitching were worse than these guys.
So Nolan Ryan had the career of Sabrhagen/Cone/Hamels AND he had the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel.
Now, adding the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel doesn't exactly scream HOF, but my point is solely that it has some positive value, however small. If I'm ranking Ryan and Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels, I'm ranking Ryan at the top.
Now, none of this helps Ryan in a Blyleven comparison; Ryan's "second career" in that case is only 800 innings with adjusted pitching runs of -110, and an ERA+ of 72. That's below replacement level, and it has negative value. I don't think any MLB pitcher with an ERA+ of 72 has ever actually pitched 800 innings.
That is pretty much exactly how you put longevity into proper light. Caldwel/Forsch/Trachsel is still a good career. A league average MLB player has plenty of value, and certainly a ton more than a human who is not good enough to be employed by MLB
800 IP with an ERA+ of 72, that is a little harder to digest.
I don't disagree with anything in your comparison - it's valid.
But there's another way to look at Ryan compared to Saberhagen, Cone, etc. that addresses the apples/oranges aspect of the length of their careers.
You can split Ryan's career into two careers of approximately the same length:
[Argument deleted]
I understand the argument and think that it's valid as far as it goes, but consider that it overvalues players with long, unspectacular careers. I mean we can likely do this to make Baines, or Kaat or Moyer look like really good players. I haven't tried, but I suspect it's possible.
Won't work with Baines. Baines was a platoon player from age 31 and on. Some years more than others.
Also, Baines peak from his rookie year up to age 30, through 5,888 plate appearances, he had an OPS+ of 118. That is hardly a peak any where near HOF worthy by any standard.
Baines OPS+ from age 31 to end of his career was 126. On the surface, that looks like he improved, but that is a false reading since he sat vs lefties a whole lot more in that part of his career to save his percentages.
Either way, Baines never had any peak where he was HOF worthy
For comparison, Eddie Murray was mistakingly classified as a compiler at one time...but those people were wrong who said that.
For Eddie Murray's first 5,837 career plate appearances his OPS+ sat at 144. And he never sat for a platoon advantage at any time. For comparison sake, Jim Rice was mistakingly said to have been the most feared hitter in the league in his prime, but for Rice's first 5,820 career plate appearances his OPS+ was only 136.
When you dig deeper past OPS+ Murray's value rises more too.
Eddie Murray's '2nd career' consisted of another 6,980 career plate appearances with an OPS+ of 116 with FULL TIME at bats....nearly as good as Harold Baine's full time peak. Again, when you dig deeper past OPS+ Murray's value rises more too.
I understand the argument and think that it's valid as far as it goes, but consider that it overvalues players with long, unspectacular careers.
Which begs the question, what is the value of a player with a long, unspectacular career? My value is 0, having never been good enough to play a single game. So I know to a certainty that Bob Forsch's value was greater than 0, since he played hundreds of games over 16 seasons.
So if Nolan Ryan had a career equal to Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels plus the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel, and if (as I think is beyond debate) the value of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel is greater than 0, then it follows that Ryan was better than Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels. Whether or not we "overvalue" Ryan, and others with long, unspectacular careers (appended to a long, spectacular, career in Ryan's case), depends on what value we give them. I hear you, and I think I agree with your larger point, but if we value Saberhagen/Cone/Hamlels at, say, 100, then we only have to value Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel at 1 to conclude that Ryan was better. And I think valuing Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel at 1/100 of Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels is absurdly low.
Saberhagen allowed 579 runs fewer than replacement pitchers and Forsch allowed 201, or about 35% as many. As a ballpark, that works for me. If 100 is the line where a player starts to get talked about for the HOF, then Forsch sitting at 35 is nowhere near it. But Ryan sits at 135 and sails in.
With Harold Baines, I think you could try something similar, but it wouldn't work. I don't like the stat, but for illustration purposes consider RAR. Baines' career total is 410; if you back out the negative numbers he got at the very end of his career you get 425. Try to split that career into pieces and you'll get something even smaller than that. But there are no HOFers, other than GOAT quality fielders, who don't have RAR already greater than 425. I've often cited Cepeda and Perez as being right on my HOF line, and they have 485 and 508. In other words, with Ryan, you can carve out Saberhagen's career and have a meaningful, if unimpressive, remainder. With Baines, there is no HOfer, or anyone close to a HOFer, who you can carve out. All Baines has is a long, unimpressive career.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Now, none of this helps Ryan in a Blyleven comparison; Ryan's "second career" in that case is only 800 innings with adjusted pitching runs of -110, and an ERA+ of 72. That's below replacement level, and it has negative value. I don't think any MLB pitcher with an ERA+ of 72 has ever actually pitched 800 innings.
Stathead says John Coleman, even though he was essentially only a part-time pitcher after his rookie year. Weren't the 1880s amazing?
I missed this. I'd never heard of John Coleman, but his rookie season simply has to be the worst season ever.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
With Harold Baines, I think you could try something similar, but it wouldn't work. I don't like the stat, but for illustration purposes consider RAR. Baines' career total is 410; if you back out the negative numbers he got at the very end of his career you get 425. Try to split that career into pieces and you'll get something even smaller than that. But there are no HOFers, other than GOAT quality fielders, who don't have RAR already greater than 425. I've often cited Cepeda and Perez as being right on my HOF line, and they have 485 and 508. In other words, with Ryan, you can carve out Saberhagen's career and have a meaningful, if unimpressive, remainder. With Baines, there is no HOfer, or anyone close to a HOFer, who you can carve out. All Baines has is a long, unimpressive career.
I spent a couple hours trying to come up with something close this morning. The closest I could come was Dave Kingman's sixteen years plus Yasiel Puig, but that's 23 years to Baines' 22. Mike Greenwell and John Jaha are 12 and 10 adding up to 22 seasons, but I didn't try to match seasons with them.
Boy, Harold Baines was a terrible choice for the HoF.
Mark Belanger had 392 RAR, Ozzie Smith 734, Rabbit Maranville 410, Bill Mazeroski 350, Brooks Robinson 755, Andruw Jones 654, and Omar Vizquel 479.
Comments
I’ll get flamed by the analytics crowd for this observation, but suspect most of the older guys will agree.
As a baseball fan in the 70s, you knew you were watching a sure thing HoFer when Carlton pitched. Didnt feel the same about Blyleven.
Whether that matters one bit or not is entirely dependent on what you believe makes up a hall of fame.
this is it. GREAT post. Bert was a fantastic pitcher. pitcher W-L is a horrible individual metric.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I always liked Bert and saw a lot of him .
I kind of assumed Carlton was going to be a lot better and picked him at random to see how Bert stacked up against an all time great.
Was I ever surprised!
you went and did it. ruined a halfway decent post by lumping Clemens in with "cheaters" It is lazy and untrue.
there are no failed tests, no admission and no evidence (unless you consider years-old syringes packed with bloody gauze, stored in a used beer can to be evidence).
The U.S. Government couldn't convict him and neither can you.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That mostly has to do with the Phillies being in the hunt more often and Carlton being their ACE every year. Optics.
Carlton does have about three seasons that are better than Blyeveln's best season too, so his star did shine bright at its absolute brightest point, and there is some merit in this argument here.
Feelings and subjective viewpoints when watching a game aside, why should Steve Carlton get more HOF credit for pitching 9 innings and giving up three runs than Blyleven for also pitching 9 innings and giving up three runs?
Now compare him to Ryan!
You are arguing with yourself, like a fool! You must like to make stuff up and you clearly only read/comprehend what fits your argument. My posts on Bert went like this:
First Post - Ug, Blyleven should not be in the HOF, great candidate for the Hall of very good.
Second Post - I am a firm believer in a stricter HOF. 1/4 of the current players would not be in there. It's not meant for very good players like Bert! I mean come on with your BS about have I ever watched Baseball holier then though crap. I have watched and played a ton and Bert was never recognized as a dominant, future HOF player. He had 4 good/great seasons, and the rest are just average to good. If you take away the 4 good/great seasons and he wouldn't even be a .500 pitcher. His record would be 214 wins and 215 losses.
I see you like to argue, talk down to people, etc. I was actually in a discussion with others and just sharing an opinion.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I'm an old timer too.
Didn't see much of Carlton, but all I heard about was 1972, and later his battle with Ryan for the all time strikeout title.
I ended up assuming he was great every year. He was not.
I did see a lot of Blyleven and his curve ball was practically unhittable, guys looked foolish against him.
Then I looked at Carlton's career;
His first 7 years he had 2 seasons with an ERA+ less than 100, and 3 with at or below 111. He was very good in 1969 with a 164 and of course in 1972 he was insanely good.
ALL of Bert's first 7 years had an ERA+ of at least 119, with a high of 156.
Expanding to 14 seasons, Carlton had 7 years with a 111 or lower ERA+, Blyleven had 2.
Carlton had 3 dominant and one unbelievable seasons out of 14 and 5 where he was not very good at all.
Blyleven had 3 dominant seasons out of 14 and one (maybe 2) where he wasn't very good.
The final 4 years worth looking at (I skipped Bert's 1982 where he pitched 20 innings), Bert was great every year with ERA+'s ranging between 128-146.
Carlton comes back with a high 151 and a low of 102.
Blyleven was a tremendously consistent GREAT pitcher, who never had that one unbelievable year.
Carlton was a LOT less consistent, but every 3 to 5 years came up with a fabulous year to make up for some real stinkers.
Post season performance is Blyleven by a MILE!
What's not to like about the guy 🤷♂️
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
That is great. My middle Son (28) has a weird sense of humor like that and wears similar t shirts and worse when we go out.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I agree I had someone tell me " I would be happy to teach you how baseball works, if you're interested. "
What's ironic to me is that that same person probably wasn't very good at baseball.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Take a breath, man, and don't shoot the messenger. Obviously, the only reason that Clemens isn't in the HOF is that he is perceived to be a cheater. Just pointing that out, not trying to convict anybody.
in your post, you did not write "perceived" cheater, you wrote "(cheater)"
Perception is not necessarily reality. you should know that. It is lazy to continue parroting Lester Munson and ESPN's schtick all these years later.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Take another breath, man, and chill. What's the one-word description of why Clemens isn't in the HOF? It's "cheater". If it is your position that I am morally and legally required to file a brief summarizing the evidence for both sides whenever I refer to Clemens omission from the HOF, well, good luck with that. There is a group of people who have been excluded from the HOF because the voters think that they cheated; Clemens is in that group, and it's the same group Puddinhead Bonds is in, fairly or unfairly. If you have a problem with that, find some sportswriters to yell at, and leave me out of it.
I disagree. 1973 was every bit as good as any season Koufax, for example, ever had.
Completely unfair. That would be like comparing Dave Steib to Jack Morris. Ron Guidry to Catfish Hunter?
Next year I think Dave Parker is on the 70's players hof list. I hope he finally gets in.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I'm a big Bert guy, but I wouldn't go that far.
Carlton's 1972 was better, but then Steve had a bad year in '73 with nearly a 4.00 ERA.
Take a look!
Yeah, Nolan Ryan is my favorite player of all time and I like to remember all the great games he pitched over his remarkable career. And comparing him to Bert Blyleven just brings into focus how many not-great games Ryan also pitched.
It has been said that the HOF should be cut by 25%. That's a reasonable desire, and someone else might even want to see it cut by 50%. Either way, though, Bert Blyleven will still be there.
Well sure it was. Also his 1980. But I wasn't comparing peak Blyleven to peak Carlton, but to peak Koufax.
Carlton's 1972 was almost certainly the best pitched season of the '70s, even better than Wood(!)'s 1971 and Seaver's 1973. I stand by my comparison of Blyleven to Koufax.
100% my man. He needs in.
Two comparisons:
https://stathead.com/baseball/player-comparison.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=blylebe01&p1yrfrom=1973&player_id2=koufasa01&p2yrfrom=1963&type=p#compare_pitching_standard
https://stathead.com/baseball/player-comparison.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=blylebe01&p1yrfrom=1973&player_id2=koufasa01&p2yrfrom=1966&type=p#compare_pitching_standard
IMO it's difficult to make a significant distinction in favor of Player 2 in either case, once one takes park and era figures into account.
I hope McGriff gets elected. And I can see Andruw Jones and Kenny Lofton someday getting elected.
If so, that would mean the 1997 Atlanta Braves had these Hall of Famers:
Kenny Lofton. Loved watching him play but HOF? Please no!
.
Next would be Mickey Rivers. Lol.
I think you would be in the top 3% least likely of all posters on this board to tell others to "Chill" or "take another breath" with all of your half-page condescending diatribes.
all you are doing is carrying on the PERCEPTION that Clemens is a "cheater"
I am very calmly pointing out that it is untrue and lazy.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I’m pretty sure it’s the HoF electorate that has determined Clemens is a cheater. A couple of us just happen to agree with them.
Getting me to agree with texasmathnerd is really something by the way.
Bert was great. Roger is a cheater. Bert deserves his spot in the Hall. Clemens deserves a spot.
I agree that Clemens deserves a spot. he is arguably the greatest to ever pitch a baseball.
as to your other assertion, prove it. If you allege that Clemens is a "cheater" then prove it. otherwise, you are simply speaking in opinion and conjecture.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
OK, then you tell me why Clemens isn't in the HOF. And then explain to me why your answer is different than my answer. This should be fun.
you are simply pushing forward a false narrative. it is lazy. your quote:
"The only pitchers who are in the top 40 who aren't in the HOF either aren't eligible (Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, and Greinke), cheated (Clemens), or have been royally screwed (Schilling, Kevin Brown)."
you made 3 categories: arent eligible, cheated and royally screwed. YOU are a part of the group lazily pushing forth a false narrative. If you cant prove he cheated (no one else has either) then he belongs in your group number 3. royally screwed.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Kevin Brown was in the Mitchell Report so he should probably be switched from the royally screwed category to cheated
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
This is the best. I love the side bar debates that develop too.
I don't see any way one can get to that conclusion.
Blyeleven in 1973 had 325 IP and an ERA+ of 156
Koufax in 1966 had 323 IP and an ERA+ of 190
When the gap is that big in ERA+ with the same amount of IP, and within a similar competitive era, there really is nothing else that can make up that ground to say that Blyelven had as good a year as Koufax.
I forgot your exact quote, but put forth your argument in regard to Piazza and the substances that were later banned, but weren't in his day. Does that make Piazza a cheater?
And is cheating even the right word? In the end, people are mad because players got a presumed unfair advantage over other players....so if Piazza was using a substance that was not banned in his time, but banned in a later time, then didn't Piazza get an unfair advantage over others too?
What is more interesting then, is if players did get an unfair advantage, and the most widely used method of comparing to one's peers is the best method, then what does that mean for players who did not use PED? Doesn't that make them better than what their batting line says?
If Derek Jeter did not cheat, then doesn't his OPS+ 'rise' because Bonds's OPS+ is being discounted?
Then how about someone like Kenny Lofton? Wouldn't his OPS+ then become 'higher' or more valued for the same reason as Jeter? That would be certainly enough to push Lofton over the threshold to get into the HOF.
The people who are "royally screwed" are those that HOF voters don't perceive as HOF-level players but who obviously are. Curt Schilling headlines that group on this ballot, and Dick Allen headlines the group overall. Clemens is NOT in this group. The HOF voters know that Clemens career merits induction to the HOF, unless he cheated. They think he cheated. Clemens is in the "cheaters" group on the outside of the HOF looking in. Does he belong in that group? I don't know, you don't know, and the HOF voters don't know. But for the purpose of anything I've posted, it simply doesn't matter. Either way, as I defined the groups (no, you don't get to redefine my words), Clemens is a "cheater"; it is the only reason he isn't in the HOF.
And for the record, you have absolutely walked away with the trophy for "Most Offense Taken in a Purely Semantic Disagreement", and it's amusing to watch. I'll keep playing if you want to, but I'm not sure there are any more trophies you can win; not trophies you'd want to win, anyway.
I like Koufax's 1966 better than Bert's 1973.
If I recall, Koufax actually pitched well on the road that season.
wrong.
the reason Schilling is not in the HOF is his mouth/political views. he is widely considered at least a top 3 all time post season pitcher. arguably the greatest. he has plenty of regular-season stats as well. Dick Allen was also known as one that the sports writers hated. this isnt 1985 anymore where all anyone looked at was rbi totals and if a player hit 500 HR. modern day sports writers know how good Allen was. he missed out originally because of his attitude. if they are "royally screwed" it is because sports writers are punishing them for those reasons, not because they dont think they were good enough. They are on the outside looking in because of the sportswriter's perceptions. the same holds true for Clemens. He is falsely perceived as a "cheater" no one has ever been able to prove it, and there has never been an admission of guilt.
Other players have either been proven to have used PED post-2005 (Palmiero, Arod, Manny) or admitted (also Arod) those are players who could be added to the "cheaters" group.
You are just being lazy, repeating things you always say.
As for your last comment, your whole backhanded insult schtick gets really old. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels this way. You do it often, and to many posters. It is not very endearing. Does it make you feel good somehow? It comes across as juvenile and condescending. you really should knock it off. its not a good look.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think you're right about Schilling, but that, obviously, doesn't change anything about Clemens who has been excluded from the HOF solely because he is in the "cheater" group, in the minds of the HOF voters. I could, I guess, create another group for "mouth and political views" solely for Schilling, but that seems excessive; I think it's simpler, and more accurate, to say he's been royally screwed. The distinction being that even if everything believed about Schilling were true, he would still deserve induction. If everything believed about Clemens were true, he would not.
This remains the single only point I have made, and since it is undeniably true your ever escalating level of offense in reaction to it is amusing (because it is bewildering). So I'll keep playing for as long as you want.
@dallasactuary, @craig44 and others... I am getting awfully tired of the inability to keep a debate about ballplayers from becoming personal. It happens over and over in spite of my repeated requests to keep personal attacks and innuendos out. If it doesn't stop then I will just start shutting down threads and banning members, which would be a shame because we have a lot of very knowledgeable people participating here.
So, as I said, that would be somewhat worse than shooting fish in a barrel. Just for fun I compared Ryan to three pitchers who have never been seriously considered for the HoF, Saberhagen, Cone, and Hamels.
https://stathead.com/baseball/player-comparison.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=ryanno01&player_id2=saberbr01&player_id3=coneda01&player_id4=hamelco01&type=p#compare_pitching_standard
Stands out that all three have much better ERA+ and Strikeout to Walk ratios, with Saberhagen and Hamels being much better in WHIP and Cone in the same neighborhood. Except for longevity, it's hard to make the case that Ryan was even as good as any of these guys.
If you throw out his first and last seasons, Ryan had 10 years where his ERA+ was 105 or below.
40% of the time he was an average pitcher.
In general, people get all excited over the "spectacular" no hitters and big strikeout numbers.
The long career was impressive too, but overall, he was not a great pitcher. He had 4 great years and 2 of those he pitched less than 200 innings.
He had another 3 years with ERA+ in the 120's. The rest of the time he was generally a slightly above average pitcher.
@daltex
I don't disagree with anything in your comparison - it's valid.
But there's another way to look at Ryan compared to Saberhagen, Cone, etc. that addresses the apples/oranges aspect of the length of their careers.
You can split Ryan's career into two careers of approximately the same length:
Ryan 1: 2,767 innings, ERA + of 129, adjusted pitching runs of 236
Saberhagen: 2,563 innings, ERA+ of 126, adj pitching runs of 253
Cone: 2,899 innings, ERA+ of 121, adj. pitching runs of 231
Hamels: 2,698 innings, ERA+ of 123, adj. pitching runs of 236
So Ryan had a career that was essentially the equal of any of those three.
But Ryan also had a second career (with a very different set of comparable pitchers):
Ryan 2: 2,614 innings, ERA + of 99, adj. pitching runs of -20
Mike Caldwell: 2,409 innings, ERA+ of 99, adj. pitching runs of -20
Bob Forsch: 2,795 innings, ERA + 0f 98, adj. pitching runs of -24
Steve Trachsel: 2,501 innings, ERA+ of 99, adj. pitching runs of -24
Is the value of Mike Caldwell's or Bob Forsch's or Steve Trachsel's career negative? I don't think that's a reasonable position; they were on major league rosters for a long time so MLB thought their careers had positive value. In fact, they were all just shy of being average pitchers, so just shy of half the pitchers in the league while they were pitching were worse than these guys.
So Nolan Ryan had the career of Sabrhagen/Cone/Hamels AND he had the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel.
Now, adding the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel doesn't exactly scream HOF, but my point is solely that it has some positive value, however small. If I'm ranking Ryan and Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels, I'm ranking Ryan at the top.
Now, none of this helps Ryan in a Blyleven comparison; Ryan's "second career" in that case is only 800 innings with adjusted pitching runs of -110, and an ERA+ of 72. That's below replacement level, and it has negative value. I don't think any MLB pitcher with an ERA+ of 72 has ever actually pitched 800 innings.
Stathead says John Coleman, even though he was essentially only a part-time pitcher after his rookie year. Weren't the 1880s amazing?
Modern record would have to be Héctor Noesí with (just) 423 innings.
[Argument deleted]
I understand the argument and think that it's valid as far as it goes, but consider that it overvalues players with long, unspectacular careers. I mean we can likely do this to make Baines, or Kaat or Moyer look like really good players. I haven't tried, but I suspect it's possible.
That is pretty much exactly how you put longevity into proper light. Caldwel/Forsch/Trachsel is still a good career. A league average MLB player has plenty of value, and certainly a ton more than a human who is not good enough to be employed by MLB
800 IP with an ERA+ of 72, that is a little harder to digest.
Won't work with Baines. Baines was a platoon player from age 31 and on. Some years more than others.
Also, Baines peak from his rookie year up to age 30, through 5,888 plate appearances, he had an OPS+ of 118. That is hardly a peak any where near HOF worthy by any standard.
Baines OPS+ from age 31 to end of his career was 126. On the surface, that looks like he improved, but that is a false reading since he sat vs lefties a whole lot more in that part of his career to save his percentages.
Either way, Baines never had any peak where he was HOF worthy
For comparison, Eddie Murray was mistakingly classified as a compiler at one time...but those people were wrong who said that.
For Eddie Murray's first 5,837 career plate appearances his OPS+ sat at 144. And he never sat for a platoon advantage at any time. For comparison sake, Jim Rice was mistakingly said to have been the most feared hitter in the league in his prime, but for Rice's first 5,820 career plate appearances his OPS+ was only 136.
When you dig deeper past OPS+ Murray's value rises more too.
Eddie Murray's '2nd career' consisted of another 6,980 career plate appearances with an OPS+ of 116 with FULL TIME at bats....nearly as good as Harold Baine's full time peak. Again, when you dig deeper past OPS+ Murray's value rises more too.
Which begs the question, what is the value of a player with a long, unspectacular career? My value is 0, having never been good enough to play a single game. So I know to a certainty that Bob Forsch's value was greater than 0, since he played hundreds of games over 16 seasons.
So if Nolan Ryan had a career equal to Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels plus the career of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel, and if (as I think is beyond debate) the value of Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel is greater than 0, then it follows that Ryan was better than Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels. Whether or not we "overvalue" Ryan, and others with long, unspectacular careers (appended to a long, spectacular, career in Ryan's case), depends on what value we give them. I hear you, and I think I agree with your larger point, but if we value Saberhagen/Cone/Hamlels at, say, 100, then we only have to value Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel at 1 to conclude that Ryan was better. And I think valuing Caldwell/Forsch/Trachsel at 1/100 of Saberhagen/Cone/Hamels is absurdly low.
Saberhagen allowed 579 runs fewer than replacement pitchers and Forsch allowed 201, or about 35% as many. As a ballpark, that works for me. If 100 is the line where a player starts to get talked about for the HOF, then Forsch sitting at 35 is nowhere near it. But Ryan sits at 135 and sails in.
With Harold Baines, I think you could try something similar, but it wouldn't work. I don't like the stat, but for illustration purposes consider RAR. Baines' career total is 410; if you back out the negative numbers he got at the very end of his career you get 425. Try to split that career into pieces and you'll get something even smaller than that. But there are no HOFers, other than GOAT quality fielders, who don't have RAR already greater than 425. I've often cited Cepeda and Perez as being right on my HOF line, and they have 485 and 508. In other words, with Ryan, you can carve out Saberhagen's career and have a meaningful, if unimpressive, remainder. With Baines, there is no HOfer, or anyone close to a HOFer, who you can carve out. All Baines has is a long, unimpressive career.
I missed this. I'd never heard of John Coleman, but his rookie season simply has to be the worst season ever.
I spent a couple hours trying to come up with something close this morning. The closest I could come was Dave Kingman's sixteen years plus Yasiel Puig, but that's 23 years to Baines' 22. Mike Greenwell and John Jaha are 12 and 10 adding up to 22 seasons, but I didn't try to match seasons with them.
Boy, Harold Baines was a terrible choice for the HoF.
Mark Belanger had 392 RAR, Ozzie Smith 734, Rabbit Maranville 410, Bill Mazeroski 350, Brooks Robinson 755, Andruw Jones 654, and Omar Vizquel 479.