Here's a post copied from the "Fill out your own 2007 Hall of Fame ballot" thread:
OK, let me add my few cents into the Bert Blyleven argument. I am firmly convinced he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
First off, the strikeouts. Third all-time when he retired, behind only Ryan and Carlton. As far as him only leading the league once in his career...when anyone is competing against Nolan Ryan in strikeouts, he is NOT gonna finish first! Bert had eight 200K seasons, and led the American League in 1985.
Now, the shutouts. He finished with 60; 9th place all-time. Ryan and Seaver had 61 each.
242 complete games; Seaver had 231, Carlton 254, Ryan 222, Sutton 178, P. Niekro 245.
Bert had a 3.31 career ERA. Carlton 3.22, Ryan 3.19, Sutton 3.26, P. Niekro 3.35, G. Perry 3.11
.534 Winning %. Ryan .526, P. Niekro .537, G. Perry .542
He finished with 1,322 walks. Gibson 1,336; Sutton 1,343; W. Johnson 1,363; G. Perry 1,379, Seaver 1,390; Spahn 1,434; Ruffing 1,541; Feller 1,764, Wynn 1,775, P. Niekro 1,809, Carlton 1,833 and Ryan 2,795.
Homeruns allowed - 430. Perhaps the one stat most people remember about Blyleven. Robin Roberts gave up 505, Jenkins 484, P. Niekro 482, Sutton 472, Spahn 434.
Overall, here are Blyleven's year by year top-five finishes in certain categories:
Wins - one 2nd place and one 4th place K's - One 1st place, three 2nd place (behind Ryan), two 3rd place (behind Ryan and Tanana), six 4th place and one 5th place ERA - one 2nd place, one 3rd place, two 4th place and two 5th place Shutouts - three 1st place, three 2nd place, one 3rd place and one 5th place Complete Games - one 1st place, one 2nd place, one 3rd place, one 4th place and one 5th place
Oh, he was also 4-1 career in the post-season with a 2.47 ERA!
One more thing to add...Cy Young Award voting:
He finished 3rd in 1984 behind Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry (two relievers), 3rd in 1985 behind Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry, and 4th in 1989 behind Saberhagen, Dave Stewart and Mike Moore.
Take the complete record, and he DEFINITELY BELONGS IN THE HOF!
No one is arguing he didn't have a very nice career.
But he never dominated...if he was so great, how come he was only voted to 2 all star games? How come he never got higher than a third place in cy young voting? Why didn't he lead the league in ERA?
He had a nice career - but far from a hall worthy one.
<< <i>No one is arguing he didn't have a very nice career.
But he never dominated...if he was so great, how come he was only voted to 2 all star games? How come he never got higher than a third place in cy young voting? Why didn't he lead the league in ERA?
He had a nice career - but far from a hall worthy one. >>
Axtell,
All Star Selection for pitchers is not a good stat to base HOF voting on. Pitchers are picked for the AS Game by the managers. They are NOT voted on by the players or the fans. Among the reasons a pitcher may not be picked is their place in their team's rotation. If the AS Game is not close enough to their normal rotation time, the manager usually won't pick them. Even today, if a pitcher is pitching on Sunday (with the AS Game on Tuesday), or they're scheduled to pitch the following Thursday, they won't go to the AS Game. Their own team won't let them go.
Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984. He was beaten out by two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry. He was the best starting pitcher that year. In 1985, Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry had GREAT years, and beat him. That year, Blyleven pitched for the Twins and Indians, and led the league in K's, shutouts and complete games, while winning 17 games.
<< <i> Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984. He was beaten out by two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry. He was the best starting pitcher that year. In 1985, Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry had GREAT years, and beat him. That year, Blyleven pitched for the Twins and Indians, and led the league in K's, shutouts and complete games, while winning 17 games.
Steve >>
So let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him one cy young award (even though hernandez had a fantastic year).
One cy young is enough to get a guy to the hall? Sorry, I just don't buy it, and never will.
<< <i> Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984. He was beaten out by two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry. He was the best starting pitcher that year. In 1985, Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry had GREAT years, and beat him. That year, Blyleven pitched for the Twins and Indians, and led the league in K's, shutouts and complete games, while winning 17 games.
Steve >>
So let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him one cy young award (even though hernandez had a fantastic year).
One cy young is enough to get a guy to the hall? Sorry, I just don't buy it, and never will. >>
Cy Young Awards:
Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, Juan Marichal and Nolan Ryan NEVER won a Cy Young Award. Fergie Jenkins and Catfish Hunter won one each. Do they not deserve HOF membership? I think not.
Bret Saberhagen and Denny McLain won TWO Cy Young Awards each. Should they be IN the HOF? I don't think so.
The following pitchers all won Cy Young Awards during Bert Blyleven's career and in the same league as him:
Vida Blue, Sparky Lyle, Mike Flanagan, Steve Stone, Pete Vuckovich, Lamarr Hoyt. Do they deserve to be in the HOF? Only if they buy a ticket!
Jim Palmer won 20 games EIGHT times, three times leading the league; yet he only won two Cy Young Awards (in two of the three years he led the league). The other year he led the league, Sparky Lyle won the CYA. Fergie Jenkins won 20 games SEVEN times and led the league twice, yet as I mentioned above, only won one CYA.
So in my opinion, Cy Young Awards (as well as other SUBJECTIVE awards), should not be a litmus test for HOF membership. While they can further substantiate an otherwise HOF-worthy career, they, by themselves, should not be used to validate HOF membership. Too many pitchers have that ONE GREAT YEAR, that keeps other HOF-worthy pitchers, who post CONSISTENT numbers during their ENTIRE career, from winning even ONE Cy Young Award.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I know I'm simply stating what I've already said, but I just don't think the equation "No [such and such awards], no [such and such titles] = No HOF induction" holds up. The whole idea of the HOF is to reconize those that are the best of the best based on their overall career, not how big their trophy case was. I mean, if they do also have gobs of awards and championships and such, great. But not having a Cy Young/MVP or championship or batting title or whatever is no excuse for not letting someone in the HOF. If their overall career stats cut the mustard, then that's what counts first and foremost, since that's how you judge a whole career and not just a small part of it.
<< <i>Here's a post copied from the "Fill out your own 2007 Hall of Fame ballot" thread:
OK, let me add my few cents into the Bert Blyleven argument. I am firmly convinced he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
First off, the strikeouts. Third all-time when he retired, behind only Ryan and Carlton. As far as him only leading the league once in his career...when anyone is competing against Nolan Ryan in strikeouts, he is NOT gonna finish first! Bert had eight 200K seasons, and led the American League in 1985.
Now, the shutouts. He finished with 60; 9th place all-time. Ryan and Seaver had 61 each.
242 complete games; Seaver had 231, Carlton 254, Ryan 222, Sutton 178, P. Niekro 245.
Bert had a 3.31 career ERA. Carlton 3.22, Ryan 3.19, Sutton 3.26, P. Niekro 3.35, G. Perry 3.11
.534 Winning %. Ryan .526, P. Niekro .537, G. Perry .542
He finished with 1,322 walks. Gibson 1,336; Sutton 1,343; W. Johnson 1,363; G. Perry 1,379, Seaver 1,390; Spahn 1,434; Ruffing 1,541; Feller 1,764, Wynn 1,775, P. Niekro 1,809, Carlton 1,833 and Ryan 2,795.
Homeruns allowed - 430. Perhaps the one stat most people remember about Blyleven. Robin Roberts gave up 505, Jenkins 484, P. Niekro 482, Sutton 472, Spahn 434.
Overall, here are Blyleven's year by year top-five finishes in certain categories:
Wins - one 2nd place and one 4th place K's - One 1st place, three 2nd place (behind Ryan), two 3rd place (behind Ryan and Tanana), six 4th place and one 5th place ERA - one 2nd place, one 3rd place, two 4th place and two 5th place Shutouts - three 1st place, three 2nd place, one 3rd place and one 5th place Complete Games - one 1st place, one 2nd place, one 3rd place, one 4th place and one 5th place
Oh, he was also 4-1 career in the post-season with a 2.47 ERA!
One more thing to add...Cy Young Award voting:
He finished 3rd in 1984 behind Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry (two relievers), 3rd in 1985 behind Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry, and 4th in 1989 behind Saberhagen, Dave Stewart and Mike Moore.
Take the complete record, and he DEFINITELY BELONGS IN THE HOF!
Steve >>
Geez, when you put it like that, I now think it's totallly ridicious that Mr. Blyleven didn't get in on the first ballot with at least 85% of the vote. I mean, you clearly show that his overall career definetly cuts the mustard against what is arguably among the greatest pitchers of all time. And I had no idea the man had eight 200 strikeout seasons; in most years 200 hits is enough for a batting title. Now how many hitters with eight 200 hit seasons do not belong in the HOF?
I sure hope the writers (if they haven't voted already) are reading this and will finally correct this injustice in time for the blockbuster 2007 class like they did for Mr. Niekro and Mr. Sutton (the last odd men with 300 wins out before the writers finally came to their senses).
Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, Juan Marichal and Nolan Ryan NEVER won a Cy Young Award. Fergie Jenkins and Catfish Hunter won one each. Do they not deserve HOF membership? I think not.
Bret Saberhagen and Denny McLain won TWO Cy Young Awards each. Should they be IN the HOF? I don't think so.
The following pitchers all won Cy Young Awards during Bert Blyleven's career and in the same league as him:
Vida Blue, Sparky Lyle, Mike Flanagan, Steve Stone, Pete Vuckovich, Lamarr Hoyt. Do they deserve to be in the HOF? Only if they buy a ticket! >>
Good god do you people even read? I never said cy young awards ALONE merit induction. Jesus, people, learn some context! I said simply that based on his overwhelming lack of support by his peers (i.e. TWO all star appearances in 22 years, NO cy young awards, NO ERA titles), tells me that he wasn't the overwhelming pitcher those wanting him in say he was. Yes, he threw the ball forever; but damn, man, do we want to water down the hall with a bunch of guys who stuck around forever? I granted that he had a very nice career, but hall of fame worthy? Nahhh.
<< <i> good strong arguments SD. the stats tell the tale. strikeouts, shoutouts, complete games, and a very respectable ERA.
Axtell just doesnt get it lol. >>
No, what YOU don't get is blyleven had a nice career - just not one meriting hall induction.
<< <i>Jim Palmer won 20 games EIGHT times, three times leading the league; yet he only won two Cy Young Awards (in two of the three years he led the league). The other year he led the league, Sparky Lyle won the CYA. Fergie Jenkins won 20 games SEVEN times and led the league twice, yet as I mentioned above, only won one CYA. >>
Who gives a rat's ass about wins? I never once mentioned wins as it's hardly a valuable measure of a pitcher's effectiveness.
<< <i>So in my opinion, Cy Young Awards (as well as other SUBJECTIVE awards), should not be a litmus test for HOF membership. While they can further substantiate an otherwise HOF-worthy career, they, by themselves, should not be used to validate HOF membership. Too many pitchers have that ONE GREAT YEAR, that keeps other HOF-worthy pitchers, who post CONSISTENT numbers during their ENTIRE career, from winning even ONE Cy Young Award. >>
If a pitcher is TRULY a dominant pitcher, a GREAT pitcher that merits HALL OF FAME induction, they will be able to get through and win, or at the very least, finish in the top more than TWICE. Blyleven, in what people want to call a hall of fame career, managed just TWO top three finishes - in twenty two years!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
"The hall should be the best of the best." Where does it say this in the halls guidelines? I must have missed something. Everyone has a different criteria for what a hall of famer is. some feel a truly great player for a relatively short period deserves induction (ie Koufax), others feel a very good player over the long haul deserves recognition (Robin Yount), others feel if they person has a moment that becomes part of the fabric of that sport they deserve recognition (mazeroski), and others feel fame is all that is truly needed to be a hall of famer (Tinker,Evers,Chance). Who is to say any of these thought processes are wrong. People think differently about different things and that is why a discussion like this can be compelling. Everyone tends to just be a little to condescending and egotistical in discussion about these things when someone disagrees with them. For the record i would absolutely vote for Bert but i will admit i would have a rather large hall of fame as i believe players from all of the different areas i mentioned above are hall of fame worthy.
bump; I guess the jury (writers) will reach a verdict this January regarding Mr. Blyleven; it'd sure be fun for him to go in with Mr. Ripken, Mr. Gwynn, and Mr. McGwire; it'd be the best HOF class since 1999!
<< <i>bump; I guess the jury (writers) will reach a verdict this January regarding Mr. Blyleven; it'd sure be fun for him to go in with Mr. Ripken, Mr. Gwynn, and Mr. McGwire; it'd be the best HOF class since 1999! >>
I still think Blyleven and Gossage belong in Cooperstown, but I'm pretty convinced the only two going in this year will be Ripken and Gwynn. Oh and likely, Ron Santo on the Vet's ballot.
Blyleven and Gossage both certainly belong in the HOF.
I have followed the Twins since the mid 1960's and Bert was a fantastic pitcher. I would have loved to see him pitch on a team that could score runs for him.
It seems that every time Gossage came in to pitch against the Twins, he blew them away.
I don't have any stats to back up my opinion........sorry.
JB
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
he has very good career numbers that are the result of primarily longevity.
I agree with that. If Blyleven gets in, what about Kim Kaat?
Blyleven was a very good pitcher, but I don't think HOF when I think of his career.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Of course I mean Jim Kaat. And he deserves to be in before Blyleven, IMO, but I don't think HOF when I think of either player. Kaat was a great fielding pitcher, but his stats are the byproduct of longevity more than any kind of real dominance in the league, much like Don Sutton, who I don't believe belongs in the Hall, either, for that matter.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I'd have to vote no. It's not that he didn't have a very good and maybe even great career, but on the whole, it's not a HOF career IMO. I'm not saying he isn't better than several of the pitchers in the HOF, but I would not put him in. His WHIP at 1.20 is not THAT impressive IMO. 287 Wins is not that impressive in 685 starts though I realize much of that is beyond his control. Then there are the 250 losses. That's a lot for someone who didn't break 300. Yes I realize a lot of that is out of his control as well. In summary, he has very good career numbers that are the result of primarily longevity. >>
I won't go over again the overwhelming mountain of evidence that Blyleven is a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, but there's one bit of information here that needs to be dealt with - and added to that mountain. Blyleven's 1.2 WHIP came as a result of being among the top 8 in his league in that department 11 times, leading the league once. If you ignore the deadball era and the 1960's - where hits were much harder to come by - Blyleven is one of the top 20 starting pitchers of all time in WHIP. If you pause to consider that Blyleven spent nearly every year of his entire career in hitter's parks, and that WHIP is NOT park-adjusted, he's probably one of the top-10 in that department.
And his WHIP is being used as a mark against him?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Blyleven was a very good pitcher and had an excellent career, but he never finished higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting, won 20 games only once in a 22-year career (during which time winning 20 games was a lot easier to achieve with the 4-man rotation), and lost 250 games. Only 4 times in his entire career, did he even finish in the top 10 in the Cy Young Award voting. He was never the dominant pitcher of his time, and I just don't feel he's worthy of HOF induction based on his career numbers. The Hall has enough very good pitchers without adding another one like Blyleven. He's a candidate worthy of consideration, but certainly not a "slam dunk HOFer" by any stretch, and the HOF voting has rightly reflected that reality.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Blyleven was a very good pitcher and had an excellent career, but he never finished higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting, won 20 games only once in a 22-year career (during which time winning 20 games was a lot easier to achieve with the 4-man rotation), and lost 250 games. Only 4 times in his entire career, did he even finish in the top 10 in the Cy Young Award voting. He was never the dominant pitcher of his time, and I just don't feel his worthy og HOF induction based on his career numbers. The Hall has enough very good pitchers without adding another one like Blyleven. He's a candidate worthy of consideration, but certainly not a "slam dunk HOFer" by any stretch, and the HOF voting has rightly reflected that reality. >>
So because a bunch of sportswriters 20-30 years ago didn't understand how tough Blyleven's parks were to pitch in, we are today bound by their ignorance? Blyleven deserved two or three Cy Young Awards, he deserved to be in the top-10 in the voting at least 10 times. If Willie Hernandez and Sparky Lyle (and Jim Palmer, once) give back the awards they won but didn't deserve, can Blyleven get in then? Exactly how much less dominant should I consider Ted Williams because Joe Gordon won the MVP in 1942? If you think that's a silly question, then you now have a clear picture of how I view Sparky Lyle's Cy Young Award - and how you ought to view it.
Bert Blyleven WAS a dominant pitcher for a very long time; he had the great misfortune to pitch for very few good teams and to pitch his entire career in hitter's parks. He now suffers the misfortune that even though those facts are well-known and widely available, nobody is willing to rethink their position on him.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So because a bunch of sportswriters 20-30 years ago didn't understand how tough Blyleven's parks were to pitch in, we are today bound by their ignorance? Blyleven deserved two or three Cy Young Awards, he deserved to be in the top-10 in the voting at least 10 times. If Willie Hernandez and Sparky Lyle (and Jim Palmer, once) give back the awards they won but didn't deserve, can Blyleven get in then?
I understand what you're saying, but the truth of the matter is that he failed to achieve the awards and accolades you claim he deserved, and that is the reality on which his consideration for the Hall should be based. "If" is the relative word in your above argument. And the fact is that Blyleven did not finish higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting or win more than 20 games (just once) in his entire 22-year career while losing 250 games and finishing with a winning percentage of just a little over .530. As many have already mentioned, his numbers are more the byproduct of longevity than anything else.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I understand what you're saying, but the truth of the matter is that he failed to achieve the awards and accolades you claim he deserved, and that is the reality on which his consideration for the Hall should be based. >>
Just so we are both clear, you are saying that Ted Williams is less deserving of the HOF than he would otherwise have been because Joe Gordon won the 1942 MVP and not Williams? I mean, you ARE saying that, I am simply having trouble believing it.
<< <i> "If" is the relative word in your above argument. >>
No, it's not. There are no "ifs" in my argument at all - other than my sarcastic reference to Lyle, et. al. giving back their awards. I think that Blyleven's lack of Cy Young Awards reflects very, very poorly on the sportswriters of his day; I would not for an instant revise my opinion of him the timiest bit "if" he had won the awards he had in fact earned. "If" is the relative word in YOUR argument; it shouldn't be, and that's what I'm trying to get you to see.
<< <i>And the fact is that Blyleven did not finish higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting or win more than 20 games (just once) in his entire 22-year career while losing 250 games and finishing with a winning percentage of just a little over .530. >>
Yes, those are indeed facts. No denying that. Yep, facts is what they are. However, I am stymied in my attempt to understand why they are "relevant" facts to the discussion of Blyleven's worthiness for the HOF. But in fairness to me, you aren't explaining why you think they are relevant, but rather proceeding from that assumption.
<< <i>As many have already mentioned, his numbers are more the byproduct of longevity than anything else. >>
And no matter how many people mention it, and no matter how often they mention it, they will continue to be wrong. Unless by "numbers" you mean numbers that reflect nothing more than the quality of his teammates and the parks he pitched in, like wins and awards. But if you mean the "numbers" that reflect how great a pitcher he was, like ERA and WHIP and Ks/Inn and so on, then there is not even a grain of truth in that statement.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It is a simple case of people being blinded by the 'wins' category, and that is 99% of the reason why he did not finish higher in the Cy Young races, and 99% of the reason why people view him as less than a Hall of Fame pitcher.
People have basically been programmed to such thinking on wins, and it is a difficult thing for them to get past. They simply cannot see that a guy with a 9-13 record could possibly have been better than a guy with a 20-10 record...to them it is beyond comprehension.
I am still in disbelief on how many people simply don't understand the importance run support plays in the role of a pitcher achieving wins...I've gone over that enough, as have many historians...in great detail.
Grote, the wins are the exact reason why he didn't finish higher in the CY Young voting. So just because writers can't understand that a guy with a 19-17 can be much better than a guy with a 23-10 record, Blyleven not only gets cheated once(by stupid Cy Young voters), he gets cheated twice because he never finished higher in the Cy Young voting(as that is now used as a criteria for HOF). Oh, and he also gets cheated because he didn't have his best seasons on a division winning team...and we all know how 'important' that is...oh wait, do we? Ask Albert Pujols if the writers figured out which way they view that one.
I think the recent MVP votes and subsequent talk on them highlight the limitations of the award voters.
<< <i>There are plenty of players who pitched in his era that have better WHIPs that aren't or shouldn't be in the HOF in my opinion. >>
Oh, really? Of pitchers who pitched HOF-length careers I am only able to find Seaver, Jenkins, Sutton, Palmer, Perry and Hunter (all of whom benefit to some degree from pitching in the dead ball 60's). Now you get no argument from me that Sutton and Hunter don't belong in the HOF, but those are the two that spent their prime years in parks where EVERY pitcher looked better than they really were. If you adjust all of these pitcher's WHIPs to reflect the parks they pitched in, Blyleven passes everyone on that list except Seaver and Jenkins.
As for the ones that aren't in the HOF - who exactly are these pitchers you're referring to? Sure, most years there were a handful of pitchers who beat him, but only HOFers beat him over the length of their careers (or they had short careers), and usually only then because they got to pitch in better pitcher's parks.
The argument that Blyleven's WHIP is a reason he should NOT be in the HOF makes exactly as much sense as arguing that Honus Wagner doesn't belong in the HOF because he didn't hit very many HRs. Everyone seems able to grasp the necessity of adjusting Wagner's numbers because he played in the "dead ball" era - he was actually an excellent home run hitter to get 101 in his career - but the necessity to adjust Blyleven's numbers, while every bit as real, is dismissed with the wave of a hand.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Collect vintage basketball and baseball,graded rookies allsports, Robin Yount,Brewers,Bucks,Packers Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better. Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
I can't find that posting...but in a nutshell, it was runs saved above an average pitcher...and I believe Seaver was king of the era by a lot, and Blyleven was right with or better than most everyone else.
Here is Blyleven's ranking among his peers in Pitcher RUns(RUns saved above average pitcher). Key components are runs allowed, and IP. Basically, any inning pitched with a better than league average ERA, the better. If a pitcher is throwing innings below league average, he gets credited for negative runs. As with the BR, zero means average. If a guy pitched zero, that means he pitched at the same rate as the league average for his entire career. That isn't without value of course, and it doesn't tell you how good he was in his prime. But here are the rankings...
Seaver 466
Plamer 336 BLYLEVEN 332
Jenkins 300 Perry 294
Carlton 262 Niekro 250
Stieb 224 Sutton 195 RYan 192 Guidry 184 ROgers 162
Candaleria 147
TOMMY JOHN 122
Hunter 88
KAAT 51
A groos miscarriage of justice is being done to Blyleven. Longevity plays a factor in this figure. Steve Carlton's last few seasons were absolutely horrible, so it brought down his career total by a lot. But if you were to rank them by their best FIVE years in MLB, here is how the ranking of their primes would be.....
SEAVER PALMER CARLTON
BLYLEVEN
THEN EVERYBODY ELSE.
So no, he isn't as dominate as the big three from that generation, but he is more dominate than everybody else. Add to the fact that he was third most in saving runs for entire career, then he should equal SLAM DUNK HOFer...too bad people are blinded by W/L record...as that is the reason he is unfairly viewed.
<< <i>To respond to your questions, the players not in the HOF that had lower WHIPs that played around the same time include Sutter, Guidy, Messermith, and Nolan. No they're not all starters and they didn't pitch as long as Blyleven but I would personally put Guidry and Sutter in before Blyleven. >>
First, that's an awfully short list to back up the statement that "plenty" of pitchers had better WHIP's. Second, you've got Messersmith and Nolan - two pitchers who were essentially done with their short careers by the time they were 30 and therefore had no decline phase - as half of that list. Of the two that have merit in the argument, Guidry was definitely a HOF calber pitcher. If you double the length of his career he would have been a lock, but he was done (as a decent pitcher) at 34 and he didn't start until he was 26. That's a prime-years-only career played in a pitcher-friendly park. With all that he barely beats Blyleven. Sutter is an orange in our comparison of apples; he's a relief pitcher who skipped his decline years and got to spread his meager 1,000 innings pitched over 12 years. Even if you don't think any of that's important, he's in the HOF so that hardly argues against Blyleven. The notion that "plenty" of contemporary comparable pitcher's had better WHIPs than Blyleven is simply false.
<< <i>As for your contention that the parks drastically effected the numbers, I would love to see some actual numbers to derive exactly the extent of what you and Skinpinch are trying to say here, not just with qualitative words but looking at some hard numbers. >>
Baseball-reference.com shows the park factors for each team for each season - from Blyleven's page click on the team abbreviation ("MIN", "PIT", etc.) for each year and look for "Park Factor" in the gray box near the top. What you'll find for Blyleven is stuff like 104 for 1973, 101 for 1977, 102 for 1980, 104 for 1987, etc. A figure over 100 represents a hitter's park. For Guidry, for example, you'll find 98 for 1977, 99 for 1981, 98 for 1985, etc. For somebody like Messersmith you'll find numbers like 93, 95, and 96. "Drastically" is your word, not mine, but you are the one faulting Blyleven for having a WHIP figure 4% worse than Drysdale's, and 1% worse than Palmer's; park factors explain those differences and more. Normalize Blyleven and he drops about 3%, normalize everyone else and most of the modern era pitchers increase enough to rank below Blyleven; Blyleven ends up in the top 50 starting pitchers of all time and more than 30 of those left above him pitched before WWI. Relatively minor adjustments - drastic impact on the rankings.
<< <i>Lastly, as Axtell had noted, I don't want to dilute the HOF more than it is. I don't think pitchers like Eck, Fingers, Jenkins, Bunning, etc. belong. If it were up to me, I'd kick at least a couple of dozen pitchers out of there. Blyleven doesn't merit being in there for that reason. If people want to make the argument that he belongs because he is better than many of the current pitchers in the HOF, it is a valid statment and I've never argued against that. But is not the criteria that I would want to use. >>
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you want to imagine a "Hall of Fame" where Bunning, etc. don't belong then go for it. But that HOF inside your head isn't the one I'm talking about - I'm talking about the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. And THAT Hall of Fame looks silly, even stupid, for not having Bert Blyleven in it. The notion that Blyleven "dilutes" the actual HOF is just wrong; he may dilute your imaginary HOF, but he raises the bar on the real one.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Just so we are both clear, you are saying that Ted Williams is less deserving of the HOF than he would otherwise have been because Joe Gordon won the 1942 MVP and not Williams? I mean, you ARE saying that, I am simply having trouble believing it.
To compare Joe Gordon to Ted Williams is absolutely absurd. I cannot debate you if you're going to make such ridiculous comparisons.
Look, my point is that if if you look at Blyleven's career as a whole, then I believe you have to say that he was a very good, even an excellent pitcher during his time, but should he be a "lock for the HOF" as you put it? Absolutely not. And I think the voting has correctly reflected that reality. He does merit consideration for the Hall, I just don't think of HOF when I think of Blyleven and that's my point, as many others willo agree.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
grote, you missed my point. YOU said that Blyleven's worthiness for the HOF is less than it otherwise would have been if he had won a Cy Young Award. Therefore, it is YOUR contention that a Cy Young Award OUGHT to be considered by HOF voters when deciding who gets in. I assume that if we were talking about someone besides a pitcher that you would say the same thing about an MVP (if I'm wrong about that, I'd love to hear why). So, it is YOUR contention that Ted Williams would be MORE worthy of the HOF if he had an additional MVP, such as the 1942 award. MY contention is that Ted Williams' worthiness is entirely unaffected by the fact that Joe Gordon won in 1942; MY contention is that Williams' worthiness for the HOF is entirely unaffected by ANY of the MVP awards he did win.
Yes, comparing Joe Gordon to Ted Williams is absolutely absurd. But MVP voters gave the award to Gordon. What that tells me, and ought to tell you, is that award voters reach absolutely absurd decisions. We agree that Gordon winning the MVP in 1942 was absurd; why don't we agree that Lyle winning the award in 1977 was just as absurd? Why, with all this absurdity involved in award voting, do you not trust yourself to decide who was great and who wasn't without relying on these absurd award voters for validation? Blyleven not having a Cy Young Award is absurd, every bit as absurd as Joe Gordon having an MVP award; I know it and I am trying to get you to see that you must know it, too.
baseball, please explain why Don Gullett (15.5% better than team) is great. Also, why is Jenkins (11% better than team) grouped with those who don't belong rather than the ones who do? Finally, please explain why Nolan Ryan's 1987 season (32% worse than team) was not great.
If you'd rather not, I'll tell you how it ends: W/L% better than team is as useless as W/L% in recognizing greatness. Sorry to say, you wasted your time with that study.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>bri2327, when Brett and Ryan were up for induction years ago, and ESPN talk show had a roundtable discussion about whether they would vote them in. They all said yes, as would I and said as much. However, when they asked who they would vote for if they could only choose one, all of them overwhelmingly said they would elect Brett. A couple of them had very similar comments to the kind that I made referring to him to as a "circus act" and "freak show" but that he was not one of the best pitchers in his era. I stand by that. Perhaps I was not using the proper words in referring to him as not being a "good pitcher". But he was very inconsistent and the numbers tell the same story, as does his WHIP and walks thrown. He was much better later on in his career when he had learned to control his stuff much better. >>
Most people, myself included would choose Brett over Ryan if only one could be picked. That doesnt take anything away from Ryans greatness. The struggles Ryan experienced early on in his career are nothing out of the ordinary, and are more than likely the norm rather than the oddity. Look at Sandy Koufax and Randy Johnson, two who began their careers in much the same way Ryan did.
Also, I dont see how you can choose to throw out numbers like WHIP when downplaying Ryan, yet ignore overwhelming facts that have been presented to you regarding Blylevens merits. Your stated " opinion " is that Blyleven is not HOF worthy. Thats fine, everyone can have an opinion, but if you are admitting it is only your opinion than leave it at that, instead of endlessly ignoring the vast amount of facts that have been given to show how worthy he is.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
<< <i>First off, whatever I say is just my opinion. But it's obviously an opinion that many HOF voters share. I'm sure many of them have been exposed to all sorts of facts. The bottom line is that players can be disected in almost an infinite number of ways. Many great players can look bad when using certain important metrics while others who may not have been good can be made to look better. I would like to leave the HOF for players that can look great under the majority of angles and analysis that is performed on their careers.
I am not "ignoring" any facts. Just because I don't agree with YOUR point of view does not mean that I'm "ignoring" facts that you may deem are worthy. In fact, it appears that you are ignoring all of the facts that don't relate to making Blyleven a surefire HOF. I'm looking at the whole situation and drawing my own conclusions. Unlike you, I take the time to express in the majority of my posts that "it is my opinion" when I take a stand on contentious questions that are brought to fore on these boards. >>
But my point was that you have ignored the facts. The most comprehensive, complete, and true data shows his merits. It seems you dismiss that data as some sort of spinning to make him look better under someone elses viewpoint when all it is is more complete data than some of the old or traditional, less complete data that was the norm for a great many years.
You say you would like to leave the HOF for players that can look great under the majority of angles and analysis, yet the most complete, true data that has been shown clearly points to his greatness and worth. You seem drawn to the traditional methods of analyzing a player, when those traditional methods are no longer all we have in front of us to go by. There have been advancements and improvements in the ability to determine a players worth.
The reason I hanvt gone too far in this whole discussion is that a great deal of it has been back and forth between the most advanced data being clearly given, and you passing it off as someone else spinning the numbers to prove their point.
In the end we, and more importantly the voters have to realize that traditional methods of determining a players value werent always the best. In many cases the voters are behind the times in their awareness of comprehensive, modern, and more accurate data and get caught up, or better, hung up in the old ways, which isnt nearly the best way to analyze a player. Opinions, personal feelings, subjectivity, and lack of knowledge on the voters behalf have led to mistakes and injustices in voting over the years. The more educated the voters become the less we will see mistakes being made, and the less their personal feelings or agenda will cloud judgement when its time to vote.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
From my point of view, we have reached the end of this discussion. Nobody is attempting to argue that Blyleven does not belong in the HOF, only that he does not belong in some hypothetical HOF in a parallel universe. Which is fine. But shame on the people who have responsibility for electing people to the real HOF; they look ridiculous.
Interesting to ponder Ted Williams and his home/road splits. As pointed out, even looking at only his road stats still makes him one of the all-time greats. But that's not always the case; some players are considered great entirely because of their home field stats. Consider these two players:
Player 1: G 2082 AB 8300 R 1136 H 2296 2B 332 3B 70 HR 348 RBI 1298 BA .277 OBP .330 SA .469 OPS .799
Player 2: G 2436 AB 8673 R 1240 H 2380 2B 424 3B 30 HR 350 RBI 1372 BA .274 OBP .360 SA .451 OPS .811
Bragging rights to whoever can identify Player 1. Player 2 is Chili Davis. If someone wants to make the case that Player 1 is HOF-worthy and Chili Davis is not - have at it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>dallasactuary, no need to be snide and talk about parallel universes. You know darn well I'm trying to say that the bar needs to be raised on THIS HOF and if you disagree, as many do, then that's fine. But just because YOU feel that way doesn't mean that's how it should be. Blyleven may eventually get in, but it would still not change my mind on the subject, nor many others. >>
OK, "parallel universes" was snide - and I apologize for that.
I'll rephrase it based on what you just said. Denying Blyleven access to the HOF represents a raising of the bar; there is no question that he belongs in based on the standards as they have always existed and as they continue to exist. In fact, it represents a raising of the bar so high that MOST of the people in the HOF would no longer qualify. And it means not a single person who is already eligible for the HOF can ever get in; Blyleven is by far the best player already eligible who has not been voted in (maybe Ron Santo).
Except the standards aren't changing, and they're not likely to change anytime soon - Bruce Sutter just got in last year and he was nowhere near as good as Blyleven. So I guess I'm just wondering by what logic we raise the standards for Bert Blyleven, and only Bert Blyleven, while the HOF marches on and inducts far less qualified players. I get that you want the standards to change, but the HOF voters clearly don't, and it is absolutely nonsensical that those HOF voters are not voting for Blyleven.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If Blyleven doesn't already have a PR person, you ought to send him a copy of this thread. I doubt anyone has ever argued as vehemently for his enshrinement as you have! Unfortunately, when the votes come in, he'll be on the outside looking in once again (and that's the voting fror the REAL HOF, in Cooperstown, NY)!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Comments
see above
double post.
OK, let me add my few cents into the Bert Blyleven argument. I am firmly convinced he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
First off, the strikeouts. Third all-time when he retired, behind only Ryan and Carlton. As far as him only leading the league once in his career...when anyone is competing against Nolan Ryan in strikeouts, he is NOT gonna finish first! Bert had eight 200K seasons, and led the American League in 1985.
Now, the shutouts. He finished with 60; 9th place all-time. Ryan and Seaver had 61 each.
242 complete games; Seaver had 231, Carlton 254, Ryan 222, Sutton 178, P. Niekro 245.
Bert had a 3.31 career ERA. Carlton 3.22, Ryan 3.19, Sutton 3.26, P. Niekro 3.35, G. Perry 3.11
.534 Winning %. Ryan .526, P. Niekro .537, G. Perry .542
He finished with 1,322 walks. Gibson 1,336; Sutton 1,343; W. Johnson 1,363; G. Perry 1,379, Seaver 1,390; Spahn 1,434; Ruffing 1,541; Feller 1,764, Wynn 1,775, P. Niekro 1,809, Carlton 1,833 and Ryan 2,795.
Homeruns allowed - 430. Perhaps the one stat most people remember about Blyleven. Robin Roberts gave up 505, Jenkins 484, P. Niekro 482, Sutton 472, Spahn 434.
Blyleven K'd 6.70 batters per 9 innings. Drysdale 6.52, Jenkins 6.38, Sutton 6.09, Feller 6.07.
Overall, here are Blyleven's year by year top-five finishes in certain categories:
Wins - one 2nd place and one 4th place
K's - One 1st place, three 2nd place (behind Ryan), two 3rd place (behind Ryan and Tanana), six 4th place and one 5th place
ERA - one 2nd place, one 3rd place, two 4th place and two 5th place
Shutouts - three 1st place, three 2nd place, one 3rd place and one 5th place
Complete Games - one 1st place, one 2nd place, one 3rd place, one 4th place and one 5th place
Oh, he was also 4-1 career in the post-season with a 2.47 ERA!
One more thing to add...Cy Young Award voting:
He finished 3rd in 1984 behind Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry (two relievers), 3rd in 1985 behind Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry, and 4th in 1989 behind Saberhagen, Dave Stewart and Mike Moore.
Take the complete record, and he DEFINITELY BELONGS IN THE HOF!
Steve
But he never dominated...if he was so great, how come he was only voted to 2 all star games? How come he never got higher than a third place in cy young voting? Why didn't he lead the league in ERA?
He had a nice career - but far from a hall worthy one.
<< <i>No one is arguing he didn't have a very nice career.
But he never dominated...if he was so great, how come he was only voted to 2 all star games? How come he never got higher than a third place in cy young voting? Why didn't he lead the league in ERA?
He had a nice career - but far from a hall worthy one. >>
Axtell,
All Star Selection for pitchers is not a good stat to base HOF voting on. Pitchers are picked for the AS Game by the managers. They are NOT voted on by the players or the fans. Among the reasons a pitcher may not be picked is their place in their team's rotation. If the AS Game is not close enough to their normal rotation time, the manager usually won't pick them. Even today, if a pitcher is pitching on Sunday (with the AS Game on Tuesday), or they're scheduled to pitch the following Thursday, they won't go to the AS Game. Their own team won't let them go.
Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984. He was beaten out by two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry. He was the best starting pitcher that year. In 1985, Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry had GREAT years, and beat him. That year, Blyleven pitched for the Twins and Indians, and led the league in K's, shutouts and complete games, while winning 17 games.
Steve
<< <i>
Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984. He was beaten out by two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry. He was the best starting pitcher that year. In 1985, Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry had GREAT years, and beat him. That year, Blyleven pitched for the Twins and Indians, and led the league in K's, shutouts and complete games, while winning 17 games.
Steve >>
So let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him one cy young award (even though hernandez had a fantastic year).
One cy young is enough to get a guy to the hall? Sorry, I just don't buy it, and never will.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984. He was beaten out by two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry. He was the best starting pitcher that year. In 1985, Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry had GREAT years, and beat him. That year, Blyleven pitched for the Twins and Indians, and led the league in K's, shutouts and complete games, while winning 17 games.
Steve >>
So let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him one cy young award (even though hernandez had a fantastic year).
One cy young is enough to get a guy to the hall? Sorry, I just don't buy it, and never will. >>
Cy Young Awards:
Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, Juan Marichal and Nolan Ryan NEVER won a Cy Young Award. Fergie Jenkins and Catfish Hunter won one each. Do they not deserve HOF membership? I think not.
Bret Saberhagen and Denny McLain won TWO Cy Young Awards each. Should they be IN the HOF? I don't think so.
The following pitchers all won Cy Young Awards during Bert Blyleven's career and in the same league as him:
Vida Blue, Sparky Lyle, Mike Flanagan, Steve Stone, Pete Vuckovich, Lamarr Hoyt. Do they deserve to be in the HOF? Only if they buy a ticket!
Jim Palmer won 20 games EIGHT times, three times leading the league; yet he only won two Cy Young Awards (in two of the three years he led the league). The other year he led the league, Sparky Lyle won the CYA. Fergie Jenkins won 20 games SEVEN times and led the league twice, yet as I mentioned above, only won one CYA.
So in my opinion, Cy Young Awards (as well as other SUBJECTIVE awards), should not be a litmus test for HOF membership. While they can further substantiate an otherwise HOF-worthy career, they, by themselves, should not be used to validate HOF membership. Too many pitchers have that ONE GREAT YEAR, that keeps other HOF-worthy pitchers, who post CONSISTENT numbers during their ENTIRE career, from winning even ONE Cy Young Award.
Steve
Axtell just doesnt get it lol.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>Here's a post copied from the "Fill out your own 2007 Hall of Fame ballot" thread:
OK, let me add my few cents into the Bert Blyleven argument. I am firmly convinced he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
First off, the strikeouts. Third all-time when he retired, behind only Ryan and Carlton. As far as him only leading the league once in his career...when anyone is competing against Nolan Ryan in strikeouts, he is NOT gonna finish first! Bert had eight 200K seasons, and led the American League in 1985.
Now, the shutouts. He finished with 60; 9th place all-time. Ryan and Seaver had 61 each.
242 complete games; Seaver had 231, Carlton 254, Ryan 222, Sutton 178, P. Niekro 245.
Bert had a 3.31 career ERA. Carlton 3.22, Ryan 3.19, Sutton 3.26, P. Niekro 3.35, G. Perry 3.11
.534 Winning %. Ryan .526, P. Niekro .537, G. Perry .542
He finished with 1,322 walks. Gibson 1,336; Sutton 1,343; W. Johnson 1,363; G. Perry 1,379, Seaver 1,390; Spahn 1,434; Ruffing 1,541; Feller 1,764, Wynn 1,775, P. Niekro 1,809, Carlton 1,833 and Ryan 2,795.
Homeruns allowed - 430. Perhaps the one stat most people remember about Blyleven. Robin Roberts gave up 505, Jenkins 484, P. Niekro 482, Sutton 472, Spahn 434.
Blyleven K'd 6.70 batters per 9 innings. Drysdale 6.52, Jenkins 6.38, Sutton 6.09, Feller 6.07.
Overall, here are Blyleven's year by year top-five finishes in certain categories:
Wins - one 2nd place and one 4th place
K's - One 1st place, three 2nd place (behind Ryan), two 3rd place (behind Ryan and Tanana), six 4th place and one 5th place
ERA - one 2nd place, one 3rd place, two 4th place and two 5th place
Shutouts - three 1st place, three 2nd place, one 3rd place and one 5th place
Complete Games - one 1st place, one 2nd place, one 3rd place, one 4th place and one 5th place
Oh, he was also 4-1 career in the post-season with a 2.47 ERA!
One more thing to add...Cy Young Award voting:
He finished 3rd in 1984 behind Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry (two relievers), 3rd in 1985 behind Bret Saberhagen and Ron Guidry, and 4th in 1989 behind Saberhagen, Dave Stewart and Mike Moore.
Take the complete record, and he DEFINITELY BELONGS IN THE HOF!
Steve >>
Geez, when you put it like that, I now think it's totallly ridicious that Mr. Blyleven didn't get in on the first ballot with at least 85% of the vote. I mean, you clearly show that his overall career definetly cuts the mustard against what is arguably among the greatest pitchers of all time. And I had no idea the man had eight 200 strikeout seasons; in most years 200 hits is enough for a batting title. Now how many hitters with eight 200 hit seasons do not belong in the HOF?
I sure hope the writers (if they haven't voted already) are reading this and will finally correct this injustice in time for the blockbuster 2007 class like they did for Mr. Niekro and Mr. Sutton (the last odd men with 300 wins out before the writers finally came to their senses).
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>
Cy Young Awards:
Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, Juan Marichal and Nolan Ryan NEVER won a Cy Young Award. Fergie Jenkins and Catfish Hunter won one each. Do they not deserve HOF membership? I think not.
Bret Saberhagen and Denny McLain won TWO Cy Young Awards each. Should they be IN the HOF? I don't think so.
The following pitchers all won Cy Young Awards during Bert Blyleven's career and in the same league as him:
Vida Blue, Sparky Lyle, Mike Flanagan, Steve Stone, Pete Vuckovich, Lamarr Hoyt. Do they deserve to be in the HOF? Only if they buy a ticket!
>>
Good god do you people even read? I never said cy young awards ALONE merit induction. Jesus, people, learn some context! I said simply that based on his overwhelming lack of support by his peers (i.e. TWO all star appearances in 22 years, NO cy young awards, NO ERA titles), tells me that he wasn't the overwhelming pitcher those wanting him in say he was. Yes, he threw the ball forever; but damn, man, do we want to water down the hall with a bunch of guys who stuck around forever? I granted that he had a very nice career, but hall of fame worthy? Nahhh.
<< <i> good strong arguments SD. the stats tell the tale. strikeouts, shoutouts, complete games, and a very respectable ERA.
Axtell just doesnt get it lol. >>
No, what YOU don't get is blyleven had a nice career - just not one meriting hall induction.
<< <i>Jim Palmer won 20 games EIGHT times, three times leading the league; yet he only won two Cy Young Awards (in two of the three years he led the league). The other year he led the league, Sparky Lyle won the CYA. Fergie Jenkins won 20 games SEVEN times and led the league twice, yet as I mentioned above, only won one CYA. >>
Who gives a rat's ass about wins? I never once mentioned wins as it's hardly a valuable measure of a pitcher's effectiveness.
<< <i>So in my opinion, Cy Young Awards (as well as other SUBJECTIVE awards), should not be a litmus test for HOF membership. While they can further substantiate an otherwise HOF-worthy career, they, by themselves, should not be used to validate HOF membership. Too many pitchers have that ONE GREAT YEAR, that keeps other HOF-worthy pitchers, who post CONSISTENT numbers during their ENTIRE career, from winning even ONE Cy Young Award. >>
If a pitcher is TRULY a dominant pitcher, a GREAT pitcher that merits HALL OF FAME induction, they will be able to get through and win, or at the very least, finish in the top more than TWICE. Blyleven, in what people want to call a hall of fame career, managed just TWO top three finishes - in twenty two years!
He's not getting in, and deservedly so!
For the record i would absolutely vote for Bert but i will admit i would have a rather large hall of fame as i believe players from all of the different areas i mentioned above are hall of fame worthy.
I hope so, I just picked up a NICE 71 in psa 8!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>bump; I guess the jury (writers) will reach a verdict this January regarding Mr. Blyleven; it'd sure be fun for him to go in with Mr. Ripken, Mr. Gwynn, and Mr. McGwire; it'd be the best HOF class since 1999!
I still think Blyleven and Gossage belong in Cooperstown, but I'm pretty convinced the only two going in this year will be Ripken and Gwynn. Oh and likely, Ron Santo on the Vet's ballot.
I have followed the Twins since the mid 1960's and Bert was a fantastic pitcher. I would have loved to see him pitch on a team that could score runs for him.
It seems that every time Gossage came in to pitch against the Twins, he blew them away.
I don't have any stats to back up my opinion........sorry.
JB
<< <i>No Dopey
I hope so, I just picked up a NICE 71 in psa 8! >>
Please God let it be true!
I agree with that. If Blyleven gets in, what about Kim Kaat?
Blyleven was a very good pitcher, but I don't think HOF when I think of his career.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> he has very good career numbers that are the result of primarily longevity.
I agree with that. If Blyleven gets in, what about Kim Kaat?
Blyleven was a very good pitcher, but I don't think HOF when I think of his career. >>
I don't know about this Kim fellow, but Jim Kaat seems to belong; I mean, where do you think all those 16 gold gloves came from?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I'd have to vote no. It's not that he didn't have a very good and maybe even great career, but on the whole, it's not a HOF career IMO. I'm not saying he isn't better than several of the pitchers in the HOF, but I would not put him in. His WHIP at 1.20 is not THAT impressive IMO. 287 Wins is not that impressive in 685 starts though I realize much of that is beyond his control. Then there are the 250 losses. That's a lot for someone who didn't break 300. Yes I realize a lot of that is out of his control as well. In summary, he has very good career numbers that are the result of primarily longevity. >>
I won't go over again the overwhelming mountain of evidence that Blyleven is a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, but there's one bit of information here that needs to be dealt with - and added to that mountain. Blyleven's 1.2 WHIP came as a result of being among the top 8 in his league in that department 11 times, leading the league once. If you ignore the deadball era and the 1960's - where hits were much harder to come by - Blyleven is one of the top 20 starting pitchers of all time in WHIP. If you pause to consider that Blyleven spent nearly every year of his entire career in hitter's parks, and that WHIP is NOT park-adjusted, he's probably one of the top-10 in that department.
And his WHIP is being used as a mark against him?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Blyleven was a very good pitcher and had an excellent career, but he never finished higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting, won 20 games only once in a 22-year career (during which time winning 20 games was a lot easier to achieve with the 4-man rotation), and lost 250 games. Only 4 times in his entire career, did he even finish in the top 10 in the Cy Young Award voting. He was never the dominant pitcher of his time, and I just don't feel his worthy og HOF induction based on his career numbers. The Hall has enough very good pitchers without adding another one like Blyleven. He's a candidate worthy of consideration, but certainly not a "slam dunk HOFer" by any stretch, and the HOF voting has rightly reflected that reality. >>
So because a bunch of sportswriters 20-30 years ago didn't understand how tough Blyleven's parks were to pitch in, we are today bound by their ignorance? Blyleven deserved two or three Cy Young Awards, he deserved to be in the top-10 in the voting at least 10 times. If Willie Hernandez and Sparky Lyle (and Jim Palmer, once) give back the awards they won but didn't deserve, can Blyleven get in then? Exactly how much less dominant should I consider Ted Williams because Joe Gordon won the MVP in 1942? If you think that's a silly question, then you now have a clear picture of how I view Sparky Lyle's Cy Young Award - and how you ought to view it.
Bert Blyleven WAS a dominant pitcher for a very long time; he had the great misfortune to pitch for very few good teams and to pitch his entire career in hitter's parks. He now suffers the misfortune that even though those facts are well-known and widely available, nobody is willing to rethink their position on him.
I understand what you're saying, but the truth of the matter is that he failed to achieve the awards and accolades you claim he deserved, and that is the reality on which his consideration for the Hall should be based. "If" is the relative word in your above argument. And the fact is that Blyleven did not finish higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting or win more than 20 games (just once) in his entire 22-year career while losing 250 games and finishing with a winning percentage of just a little over .530. As many have already mentioned, his numbers are more the byproduct of longevity than anything else.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I understand what you're saying, but the truth of the matter is that he failed to achieve the awards and accolades you claim he deserved, and that is the reality on which his consideration for the Hall should be based. >>
Just so we are both clear, you are saying that Ted Williams is less deserving of the HOF than he would otherwise have been because Joe Gordon won the 1942 MVP and not Williams? I mean, you ARE saying that, I am simply having trouble believing it.
<< <i> "If" is the relative word in your above argument. >>
No, it's not. There are no "ifs" in my argument at all - other than my sarcastic reference to Lyle, et. al. giving back their awards. I think that Blyleven's lack of Cy Young Awards reflects very, very poorly on the sportswriters of his day; I would not for an instant revise my opinion of him the timiest bit "if" he had won the awards he had in fact earned. "If" is the relative word in YOUR argument; it shouldn't be, and that's what I'm trying to get you to see.
<< <i>And the fact is that Blyleven did not finish higher than 3rd in the Cy Young Award voting or win more than 20 games (just once) in his entire 22-year career while losing 250 games and finishing with a winning percentage of just a little over .530. >>
Yes, those are indeed facts. No denying that. Yep, facts is what they are. However, I am stymied in my attempt to understand why they are "relevant" facts to the discussion of Blyleven's worthiness for the HOF. But in fairness to me, you aren't explaining why you think they are relevant, but rather proceeding from that assumption.
<< <i>As many have already mentioned, his numbers are more the byproduct of longevity than anything else. >>
And no matter how many people mention it, and no matter how often they mention it, they will continue to be wrong. Unless by "numbers" you mean numbers that reflect nothing more than the quality of his teammates and the parks he pitched in, like wins and awards. But if you mean the "numbers" that reflect how great a pitcher he was, like ERA and WHIP and Ks/Inn and so on, then there is not even a grain of truth in that statement.
People have basically been programmed to such thinking on wins, and it is a difficult thing for them to get past. They simply cannot see that a guy with a 9-13 record could possibly have been better than a guy with a 20-10 record...to them it is beyond comprehension.
I am still in disbelief on how many people simply don't understand the importance run support plays in the role of a pitcher achieving wins...I've gone over that enough, as have many historians...in great detail.
Grote, the wins are the exact reason why he didn't finish higher in the CY Young voting. So just because writers can't understand that a guy with a 19-17 can be much better than a guy with a 23-10 record, Blyleven not only gets cheated once(by stupid Cy Young voters), he gets cheated twice because he never finished higher in the Cy Young voting(as that is now used as a criteria for HOF). Oh, and he also gets cheated because he didn't have his best seasons on a division winning team...and we all know how 'important' that is...oh wait, do we? Ask Albert Pujols if the writers figured out which way they view that one.
I think the recent MVP votes and subsequent talk on them highlight the limitations of the award voters.
<< <i> he has very good career numbers that are the result of primarily longevity.
I agree with that. If Blyleven gets in, what about Kim Kaat?
Blyleven was a very good pitcher, but I don't think HOF when I think of his career. >>
And if Kaat gets in, what about Tommy John?
<< <i>There are plenty of players who pitched in his era that have better WHIPs that aren't or shouldn't be in the HOF in my opinion. >>
Oh, really? Of pitchers who pitched HOF-length careers I am only able to find Seaver, Jenkins, Sutton, Palmer, Perry and Hunter (all of whom benefit to some degree from pitching in the dead ball 60's). Now you get no argument from me that Sutton and Hunter don't belong in the HOF, but those are the two that spent their prime years in parks where EVERY pitcher looked better than they really were. If you adjust all of these pitcher's WHIPs to reflect the parks they pitched in, Blyleven passes everyone on that list except Seaver and Jenkins.
As for the ones that aren't in the HOF - who exactly are these pitchers you're referring to? Sure, most years there were a handful of pitchers who beat him, but only HOFers beat him over the length of their careers (or they had short careers), and usually only then because they got to pitch in better pitcher's parks.
The argument that Blyleven's WHIP is a reason he should NOT be in the HOF makes exactly as much sense as arguing that Honus Wagner doesn't belong in the HOF because he didn't hit very many HRs. Everyone seems able to grasp the necessity of adjusting Wagner's numbers because he played in the "dead ball" era - he was actually an excellent home run hitter to get 101 in his career - but the necessity to adjust Blyleven's numbers, while every bit as real, is dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
Baseball, I believe I posted some actual numbers on merit previously...it may even be early in this thread...
Seaver 466
Plamer 336
BLYLEVEN 332
Jenkins 300
Perry 294
Carlton 262
Niekro 250
Stieb 224
Sutton 195
RYan 192
Guidry 184
ROgers 162
Candaleria 147
TOMMY JOHN 122
Hunter 88
KAAT 51
A groos miscarriage of justice is being done to Blyleven. Longevity plays a factor in this figure. Steve Carlton's last few seasons were absolutely horrible, so it brought down his career total by a lot. But if you were to rank them by their best FIVE years in MLB, here is how the ranking of their primes would be.....
SEAVER
PALMER
CARLTON
BLYLEVEN
THEN EVERYBODY ELSE.
So no, he isn't as dominate as the big three from that generation, but he is more dominate than everybody else. Add to the fact that he was third most in saving runs for entire career, then he should equal SLAM DUNK HOFer...too bad people are blinded by W/L record...as that is the reason he is unfairly viewed.
<< <i>To respond to your questions, the players not in the HOF that had lower WHIPs that played around the same time include Sutter, Guidy, Messermith, and Nolan. No they're not all starters and they didn't pitch as long as Blyleven but I would personally put Guidry and Sutter in before Blyleven. >>
First, that's an awfully short list to back up the statement that "plenty" of pitchers had better WHIP's. Second, you've got Messersmith and Nolan - two pitchers who were essentially done with their short careers by the time they were 30 and therefore had no decline phase - as half of that list. Of the two that have merit in the argument, Guidry was definitely a HOF calber pitcher. If you double the length of his career he would have been a lock, but he was done (as a decent pitcher) at 34 and he didn't start until he was 26. That's a prime-years-only career played in a pitcher-friendly park. With all that he barely beats Blyleven. Sutter is an orange in our comparison of apples; he's a relief pitcher who skipped his decline years and got to spread his meager 1,000 innings pitched over 12 years. Even if you don't think any of that's important, he's in the HOF so that hardly argues against Blyleven. The notion that "plenty" of contemporary comparable pitcher's had better WHIPs than Blyleven is simply false.
<< <i>As for your contention that the parks drastically effected the numbers, I would love to see some actual numbers to derive exactly the extent of what you and Skinpinch are trying to say here, not just with qualitative words but looking at some hard numbers. >>
Baseball-reference.com shows the park factors for each team for each season - from Blyleven's page click on the team abbreviation ("MIN", "PIT", etc.) for each year and look for "Park Factor" in the gray box near the top. What you'll find for Blyleven is stuff like 104 for 1973, 101 for 1977, 102 for 1980, 104 for 1987, etc. A figure over 100 represents a hitter's park. For Guidry, for example, you'll find 98 for 1977, 99 for 1981, 98 for 1985, etc. For somebody like Messersmith you'll find numbers like 93, 95, and 96. "Drastically" is your word, not mine, but you are the one faulting Blyleven for having a WHIP figure 4% worse than Drysdale's, and 1% worse than Palmer's; park factors explain those differences and more. Normalize Blyleven and he drops about 3%, normalize everyone else and most of the modern era pitchers increase enough to rank below Blyleven; Blyleven ends up in the top 50 starting pitchers of all time and more than 30 of those left above him pitched before WWI. Relatively minor adjustments - drastic impact on the rankings.
<< <i>Lastly, as Axtell had noted, I don't want to dilute the HOF more than it is. I don't think pitchers like Eck, Fingers, Jenkins, Bunning, etc. belong. If it were up to me, I'd kick at least a couple of dozen pitchers out of there. Blyleven doesn't merit being in there for that reason. If people want to make the argument that he belongs because he is better than many of the current pitchers in the HOF, it is a valid statment and I've never argued against that. But is not the criteria that I would want to use. >>
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you want to imagine a "Hall of Fame" where Bunning, etc. don't belong then go for it. But that HOF inside your head isn't the one I'm talking about - I'm talking about the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. And THAT Hall of Fame looks silly, even stupid, for not having Bert Blyleven in it. The notion that Blyleven "dilutes" the actual HOF is just wrong; he may dilute your imaginary HOF, but he raises the bar on the real one.
To compare Joe Gordon to Ted Williams is absolutely absurd. I cannot debate you if you're going to make such ridiculous comparisons.
Look, my point is that if if you look at Blyleven's career as a whole, then I believe you have to say that he was a very good, even an excellent pitcher during his time, but should he be a "lock for the HOF" as you put it? Absolutely not. And I think the voting has correctly reflected that reality. He does merit consideration for the Hall, I just don't think of HOF when I think of Blyleven and that's my point, as many others willo agree.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yes, comparing Joe Gordon to Ted Williams is absolutely absurd. But MVP voters gave the award to Gordon. What that tells me, and ought to tell you, is that award voters reach absolutely absurd decisions. We agree that Gordon winning the MVP in 1942 was absurd; why don't we agree that Lyle winning the award in 1977 was just as absurd? Why, with all this absurdity involved in award voting, do you not trust yourself to decide who was great and who wasn't without relying on these absurd award voters for validation? Blyleven not having a Cy Young Award is absurd, every bit as absurd as Joe Gordon having an MVP award; I know it and I am trying to get you to see that you must know it, too.
baseball, please explain why Don Gullett (15.5% better than team) is great. Also, why is Jenkins (11% better than team) grouped with those who don't belong rather than the ones who do? Finally, please explain why Nolan Ryan's 1987 season (32% worse than team) was not great.
If you'd rather not, I'll tell you how it ends: W/L% better than team is as useless as W/L% in recognizing greatness. Sorry to say, you wasted your time with that study.
You have lost all credibility in discussing who is or who isnt worthy of the HOF when you claim that Nolan Ryan wasnt a good pitcher.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>bri2327, when Brett and Ryan were up for induction years ago, and ESPN talk show had a roundtable discussion about whether they would vote them in. They all said yes, as would I and said as much. However, when they asked who they would vote for if they could only choose one, all of them overwhelmingly said they would elect Brett. A couple of them had very similar comments to the kind that I made referring to him to as a "circus act" and "freak show" but that he was not one of the best pitchers in his era. I stand by that. Perhaps I was not using the proper words in referring to him as not being a "good pitcher". But he was very inconsistent and the numbers tell the same story, as does his WHIP and walks thrown. He was much better later on in his career when he had learned to control his stuff much better. >>
Most people, myself included would choose Brett over Ryan if only one could be picked. That doesnt take anything away from Ryans greatness. The struggles Ryan experienced early on in his career are nothing out of the ordinary, and are more than likely the norm rather than the oddity. Look at Sandy Koufax and Randy Johnson, two who began their careers in much the same way Ryan did.
Also, I dont see how you can choose to throw out numbers like WHIP when downplaying Ryan, yet ignore overwhelming facts that have been presented to you regarding Blylevens merits. Your stated " opinion " is that Blyleven is not HOF worthy. Thats fine, everyone can have an opinion, but if you are admitting it is only your opinion than leave it at that, instead of endlessly ignoring the vast amount of facts that have been given to show how worthy he is.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>First off, whatever I say is just my opinion. But it's obviously an opinion that many HOF voters share. I'm sure many of them have been exposed to all sorts of facts. The bottom line is that players can be disected in almost an infinite number of ways. Many great players can look bad when using certain important metrics while others who may not have been good can be made to look better. I would like to leave the HOF for players that can look great under the majority of angles and analysis that is performed on their careers.
I am not "ignoring" any facts. Just because I don't agree with YOUR point of view does not mean that I'm "ignoring" facts that you may deem are worthy. In fact, it appears that you are ignoring all of the facts that don't relate to making Blyleven a surefire HOF. I'm looking at the whole situation and drawing my own conclusions. Unlike you, I take the time to express in the majority of my posts that "it is my opinion" when I take a stand on contentious questions that are brought to fore on these boards. >>
But my point was that you have ignored the facts. The most comprehensive, complete, and true data shows his merits. It seems you dismiss that data as some sort of spinning to make him look better under someone elses viewpoint when all it is is more complete data than some of the old or traditional, less complete data that was the norm for a great many years.
You say you would like to leave the HOF for players that can look great under the majority of angles and analysis, yet the most complete, true data that has been shown clearly points to his greatness and worth. You seem drawn to the traditional methods of analyzing a player, when those traditional methods are no longer all we have in front of us to go by. There have been advancements and improvements in the ability to determine a players worth.
The reason I hanvt gone too far in this whole discussion is that a great deal of it has been back and forth between the most advanced data being clearly given, and you passing it off as someone else spinning the numbers to prove their point.
In the end we, and more importantly the voters have to realize that traditional methods of determining a players value werent always the best. In many cases the voters are behind the times in their awareness of comprehensive, modern, and more accurate data and get caught up, or better, hung up in the old ways, which isnt nearly the best way to analyze a player. Opinions, personal feelings, subjectivity, and lack of knowledge on the voters behalf have led to mistakes and injustices in voting over the years. The more educated the voters become the less we will see mistakes being made, and the less their personal feelings or agenda will cloud judgement when its time to vote.
-- Yogi Berra
Interesting to ponder Ted Williams and his home/road splits. As pointed out, even looking at only his road stats still makes him one of the all-time greats. But that's not always the case; some players are considered great entirely because of their home field stats. Consider these two players:
Player 1:
G 2082
AB 8300
R 1136
H 2296
2B 332
3B 70
HR 348
RBI 1298
BA .277
OBP .330
SA .469
OPS .799
Player 2:
G 2436
AB 8673
R 1240
H 2380
2B 424
3B 30
HR 350
RBI 1372
BA .274
OBP .360
SA .451
OPS .811
Bragging rights to whoever can identify Player 1. Player 2 is Chili Davis. If someone wants to make the case that Player 1 is HOF-worthy and Chili Davis is not - have at it.
<< <i>dallasactuary, no need to be snide and talk about parallel universes. You know darn well I'm trying to say that the bar needs to be raised on THIS HOF and if you disagree, as many do, then that's fine. But just because YOU feel that way doesn't mean that's how it should be. Blyleven may eventually get in, but it would still not change my mind on the subject, nor many others. >>
OK, "parallel universes" was snide - and I apologize for that.
I'll rephrase it based on what you just said. Denying Blyleven access to the HOF represents a raising of the bar; there is no question that he belongs in based on the standards as they have always existed and as they continue to exist. In fact, it represents a raising of the bar so high that MOST of the people in the HOF would no longer qualify. And it means not a single person who is already eligible for the HOF can ever get in; Blyleven is by far the best player already eligible who has not been voted in (maybe Ron Santo).
Except the standards aren't changing, and they're not likely to change anytime soon - Bruce Sutter just got in last year and he was nowhere near as good as Blyleven. So I guess I'm just wondering by what logic we raise the standards for Bert Blyleven, and only Bert Blyleven, while the HOF marches on and inducts far less qualified players. I get that you want the standards to change, but the HOF voters clearly don't, and it is absolutely nonsensical that those HOF voters are not voting for Blyleven.
If Blyleven doesn't already have a PR person, you ought to send him a copy of this thread. I doubt anyone has ever argued as vehemently for his enshrinement as you have! Unfortunately, when the votes come in, he'll be on the outside looking in once again (and that's the voting fror the REAL HOF, in Cooperstown, NY)!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.