<< <i>Bert Blyleven? Did anybody who put him on their list actually watch this guy play? He was an above average, sometimes excellent pitcher at best who had a workhorse arm and was able to build up stats after playing for a long time. That to me should not be a Hall of Famer. I don't want to see above average or even excellent players in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for Great players, and GREAT players only. Name me one hitter who ever said before a game, "Oh my goodness, I gotta face Bert Blyleven today." I'm sick and tired of allowing these types of players in the Hall of Fame. Wasn't anything learned from voting in Bill Mazeroski? If Mazeroski hadn't hit that 1960 WS HR - he would have only gotten in the Hall of Fame if he bought a public admission ticket. >>
I realize that the possibility of my changing your mind is rather small, but I'm enjoying this so I hope you'll keep playing along.
First, I could not agree more with your basic point about the HOF. There are a great many players in there that infuriate me. I could point out literally hundreds of players that were better than Jim Hunter or George Kelly or Bruce Sutter or Harry Hooper and so on, but that is NOT an argument that they deserve to be inducted. The HOF should be reserved for "great" players, absolutely.
The problem is, Bert Blyleven WAS a great pitcher. It's actually quite impossible to construct a reasonable argument otherwise based on how I define "great". Now, if you're arguing that the HOF should only have 20 pitchers in it, then you're right, Bert Blyleven does not belong in THAT HOF. But there's the other problem - I don't know what you mean by "great".
So, what do you mean by "great"? I would need to see a definition of "great" that excluded Bert Blyleven from the 50 greatest pitchers who ever played to believe it could exist. Bill James puts him in the top 40, I would put him in the top 30 - where do you think he belongs and can you name some other pitchers that you would place right in front of or behind him? {Please don't name Jim Kaat or Tommy John, because it is just too easy to prove Blyleven was better than them - name someone in the HOF if possible.} There are 60 pitchers not from the Negro Leagues in the HOF - how many of them do you think are mistakes?
I'll understand if you don't want to spend the time it will take to answer these questions completely, but unless you do (or anyone else arguing against Blyleven's HOF worthiness does) we're just arguing in different languages, and "great" has no meaning. And if there is any way to check on this, I'm willing to bet a great deal of money that there were many, many players who put Blyleven at the top of their "I don't want to face him" list or second only to Ryan. When Ryan struck you out there was at least a good chance you went down like a man taking a hard swing at the ball - Blyleven just made batters look foolish. I'm not sure what years you watched him play, but if you missed him on Minnesota in the early 70's, then you missed a show that only Ryan and Carlton could match.
As for Mazeroski, his induction doesn't bother me. Again, this goes back to the meaning of "great" which we are using without first defining. But Bill Mazeroski was a great second baseman by any definition - probably the greatest who ever played the game, and almost certainly the greatest ever at the time he retired. Now, the "tallest midget" comment, while amusing and a little harsh, also makes a good point. Being the greatest second baseman is a universe less important than being the greatest hitter or pitcher, and much less important than being the greatest shortstop or catcher. But it is more important than being the greatest left-handed long-relief specialist, greatest pinch hitter or greatest first baseman. So I think the Hall of Fame should set aside spots for players like Mazeroski; I think there is value in preserving for all-time that Mazeroski played his position better than any other player had for a hundred years. I would rather that the HOF had separate wings for such players, or would identify that they were getting in for some reason other than their overall playing ability, but they don't. Still, the HOF better represents baseball by including players like Mazeroski than it would by excluding them. >>
You often make interesting points and this post of yours certainly adds to that. Since I will never be a participant in any Hall of Fame induction voting, here is my opinion and definition of "great" as far as deserving to be in Hall of Fame is concerned. "Great" means voters who watched him play over a period of time and don't have to "contemplate" whether he was great or not. The voters don't have to look at his stats and decide that "yes indeed he was great." The times I watched Blyleven pitch, it never struck me in the least that I was watching greatness here or a possible Hall of Fame candidate.
His first year of eligibility he received only 17% of the vote, so many voters that year evidentally agreed that Blyleven wasn't great. Then of course over the years some of the people who watched him play retire, and people who didn't watch him play become voters and start looking at his stats - and may decide "yes indeed he was great." This is no way to vote for Hall of Famers in my opinion. The induction window should only be five years in my opinion - and at this point in history...please...no more old timers inductions - in my view this depletes the on the field accomplishments of those who deserve to be in there.
Have special events and of displays of various old timers and others who contributed to the game? Of course...that is wonderful...but please, I don't want to see their plaque right beside the truly great players.
Blyleven never won even one Cy Young and was only in two All Star games - I'm not sure if he even pitched or not in those games. Even if he did pitch in those games, it's still only two All Star games - that doesn't seem like a Hall of Famer to me. Being in two All Star games certainly implies a very good to excellent pitcher...but a Hall of Famer?...come on now!
Rather than answer your question about "naming some pitchers" directly, I'll answer your question in an indirect way to illustrate my point about who doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Richie Ashburn is one of my favorite players of all time and I was happy to see him get into the Hall. But did I think he "should be" in the Hall of Fame? - absolutely not. I never campaigned for Richie to get in because although he was an excellent ballplayer, I never thought he was "great" and still don't. I visited the Hall three summers ago and thoroughly enjoyed it - but in my view when looking at the plaques on the wall...it disturbed me to believe that some of those plaques really shouldn't be up there. Some of the plaques get up there in my opinion for personal and business reasons...and sometimes for those with an agenda, not for greatness while a ballplayer.
Next time I visit the Hall, if I see Blyleven's plaque in there, sorry to say I will think the same thing about him that I think about Richie - that he shouldn't be in here.
<< <i>Bert Blyleven? Did anybody who put him on their list actually watch this guy play? He was an above average, sometimes excellent pitcher at best who had a workhorse arm and was able to build up stats after playing for a long time. That to me should not be a Hall of Famer. I don't want to see above average or even excellent players in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for Great players, and GREAT players only. Name me one hitter who ever said before a game, "Oh my goodness, I gotta face Bert Blyleven today." I'm sick and tired of allowing these types of players in the Hall of Fame. Wasn't anything learned from voting in Bill Mazeroski? If Mazeroski hadn't hit that 1960 WS HR - he would have only gotten in the Hall of Fame if he bought a public admission ticket. >>
I really don't understand the support for Blyleven. Break down the numbers, and he's not even close.
In 22 seasons in the majors: Only twice an All Star Only once won 20 games Only once led the league in strikeouts Never won a Cy Young Barely over .500 winning percentage Didn't make it to 300 wins despite his longevity Racked up a lot of strikeouts, but that's it. You can't put a guy into the Hall for one good number. These are not the stats of someone who was ever considered dominant, much less for an extended period. Steve is spot-on. Blyleven was very good, and was very good for a long time, but he was never "great".
My choices: Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire and maybe Gossage
<< <i>"Great" means voters who watched him play over a period of time and don't have to "contemplate" whether he was great or not. The voters don't have to look at his stats and decide that "yes indeed he was great." The times I watched Blyleven pitch, it never struck me in the least that I was watching greatness here or a possible Hall of Fame candidate.
His first year of eligibility he received only 17% of the vote, so many voters that year evidentally agreed that Blyleven wasn't great.
Blyleven never won even one Cy Young and was only in two All Star games >>
The problem, as I see it, with these standards is that everyone has their own definition of "great" and in the case of HOF voters historically, most of the definitions make no sense. Which is a roundabout way of asking - what do we do when the HOF voters are wrong? Now, we both agree that they are wrong about pitchers all the time, and in every case but one they have been wrong in the same direction - thinking a pitcher was great and putting him in the HOF even though he wasn't great. The one instance where they have so far been wrong in the other direction is Bert Blyleven. I liken it to the old saying "better a hundred guilty men go free than an an innocent man go to prison", except that we have let a hundred mediocrities into the HOF AND left Blyleven rotting in prison. We can't correct the large group of mistakes, but we can, and should, correct the one true injustice no matter how many years it takes. (OK, that was way too dramatic, but you get my point).
As further proof that voters don't know what the hell they're doing, consider that Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award (he deserved two), and only went to two AS games (he was a top-5 pitcher at least 10 times). And I will not agree that because CYA and AS selectors made mistakes in the past, that HOF voters are in any way obligated to accept those mistakes. I think they have the opposite obligation to ignore who actually won awards and determine who SHOULD have won them so that they do not further pollute the HOF with Jim Hunter's and the like.
A pitcher's job - his only job - is to get batter's out fast enough that they can't score. And Blyleven did that better than all but 30 or 40 pitchers in history. What you saw and what the CYA voters saw, but didn't recognize, was Blyleven doing his job at a HOF level. Fortunately, the proof will always be there in the record books.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i> As further proof that voters don't know what the hell they're doing, consider that Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award (he deserved two), and only went to two AS games (he was a top-5 pitcher at least 10 times). And I will not agree that because CYA and AS selectors made mistakes in the past, that HOF voters are in any way obligated to accept those mistakes. I think they have the opposite obligation to ignore who actually won awards and determine who SHOULD have won them so that they do not further pollute the HOF with Jim Hunter's and the like.
A pitcher's job - his only job - is to get batter's out fast enough that they can't score. And Blyleven did that better than all but 30 or 40 pitchers in history. What you saw and what the CYA voters saw, but didn't recognize, was Blyleven doing his job at a HOF level. Fortunately, the proof will always be there in the record books. >>
What years do you think he should have won a Cy Young?
I am going to look at the years he finished third:
1985 Blyleven: 17-16, 3.16 ERA, 206 K's, split among two teams. 1985 Saberhagen (winner): 20-6, 2.87 ERA, 158 K's, on a first place team
Saberhagen had a better ERA and was the rock of a team that took first place.
1984 Blyleven: 19-7, 2.87 ERA, 170 K's, for a team that finished 6th. 1984 Hernandez: 9-3, 32 saves, 1.92 ERA, 112 K's, AND won the MVP.
I don't see how you can honestly sit there and say that blyleven was a better pitcher either of these 2 years.
And a pitcher's only job was to get batters out as quickly as possible? I thought it was to not let runners score (therefore, ERA being the most telling statistic).
It also speaks VOLUMES that, despite being in the league TWENTY TWO years, he only garnered TWO all star appearances?
Hunter is a nominal Hall of Famer in my opinion but a deserving Hall of Famer. In my opinion he was definitely a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven. Hunter was in 8 All Star games with a career shorter than Blyleven who was only in 2 All Star games.
Speaking of stats - I know Dimaggio and Koufax didn't have great career accumulated stats in some categories. But only an ignorant moron would say either one of them shouldn't be in the Hall - and I know Dallas you aren't saying that at all but just to solidify the point about how stats can sometimes mislead in certain ways.
Well to wrapup my end of it here on this thread I think this is the bottom line to Blyleven: Should players get in the Hall of Fame who through having a long number of very good or excellent years, but really not many or any great/outstanding years, simply accumulated some impressive statistics. I say the answer should be "No." But if Blyleven got in, at least that would be a better choice than Bill Mazeroski who frankly, was a pathetic choice I don't care if he never hardly had an error. What "pushed" him in was that dramatic WS 1960 home run that stayed in everybody's mind - I have no doubt about that - he doesn't hit that HR and he's not in the Hall.
<<< I would rather that the HOF had separate wings for such players, or would identify that they were getting in for some reason other than their overall playing ability, >>>
I would definitely agree with that but of course we both know it will never happen. I don't remember seeing anything about Mazeroski's homer in the Hall, but of course a number of displays rotate because they don't have room for everything. They have a warehouse full of stuff somewhere. I remember seeing Maris's 61 HR bat on display - I just gawked at it for about 10 minutes...gawking at a bat - LOL...but it was amazing standing right next to such a piece of baseball history. If anyone is ever thinking about going to Cooperstown but hasn't been there yet, don't think about it anymore...just make plans to go...I promise you'll enjoy it and feel it was worth the trip. If nothing else they have a dam nice collection of baseball cards on display.
<< <i>What years do you think he should have won a Cy Young? >>
1973 and 1984
<< <i>I am going to look at the years he finished third: >>
I knew as soon as I read this that we are still speaking entirely different languages. If nothing else, and even if I can't convince anyone that Blyleven belongs in the HOF, I would like to convince a few of you to look for yourselves rather than citing Cy Young Awards, All-Star appearances, etc. as evidence of greatness. Cy Young voters have been laughably wrong on many occasions; All-Star selection is done by a single manager with many factors besides who the best pitchers are to consider. They don't mean anything. Unless you are conceding that you don't know anything about baseball, why not just look it up yourself? The voting sportswriters do not have magical powers, and they are no more capable of selecting the best pitcher as any other knowledgable fan.
<< <i>1985 Blyleven: 17-16, 3.16 ERA, 206 K's, split among two teams. 1985 Saberhagen (winner): 20-6, 2.87 ERA, 158 K's, on a first place team
Saberhagen had a better ERA and was the rock of a team that took first place.
1984 Blyleven: 19-7, 2.87 ERA, 170 K's, for a team that finished 6th. 1984 Hernandez: 9-3, 32 saves, 1.92 ERA, 112 K's, AND won the MVP.
I don't see how you can honestly sit there and say that blyleven was a better pitcher either of these 2 years. >>
Blyleven was maybe the fifth best pitcher in 1985, so no argument there. But I had to laugh when you cited the single worst CYA pick of all-time and then can't honestly see how someone would disagree. That Hernandez won the MVP may be nauseating, but it is hardly proof that he deserved it.
<< <i>And a pitcher's only job was to get batters out as quickly as possible? I thought it was to not let runners score (therefore, ERA being the most telling statistic). >>
What I said was that a pitcher's job is to get hitters out fast enough that they can't score. And yes, ERA is the most telling statistic. So why do you and everyone else keep citing All-Star appearances and awards rather than ERA? Blyleven's ERA, adjusted for the hitter's park he pitched most of his career in, was exceptional. As I've mentioned, he allowed 325 fewer earned runs over his career than an average pitcher. He's the only pitcher not in the HOF with a figure higher than 250, and there are many pitchers in the HOF with figures much, much lower than that. (The pitcher's to whom Blyleven is most often incorrectly compared, Jim Kaat and Tommy John, had figures of about 120 and 180.)
<< <i>It also speaks VOLUMES that, despite being in the league TWENTY TWO years, he only garnered TWO all star appearances? >>
It speaks VOLUMES about how FRIVOLOUS the All-Star selection process IS, I'll grant you. It says absolutely nothing about Blyleven.
<< <i>He's not a hall of famer, by any measure. >>
He is a HOFer by ANY measure. It is only to those people who refuse to actually MEASURE anything that he could possibly appear not to be.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Sportswriters don't get their jobs because they are knowledgeable about baseball, let alone baseball analyzing. They get them because they are good at writing sentences, paragraphs, and because their writing has a certain entertainment value to it.
Like most fans, they make grossly wrong assumptions, their voting track record is filled with ambiguity, and they are just flat out wrong much of the time.
I'm tempted to put a case together for BLyleven...I may have even done so in the past, but I don't know. As Dallas correctly pointed out, the environment a pitcher throws in has great influence over his results.
People simply get stuck on Blyleven's WP% as reason for not being included, and that above everything else is the reason why writers and fans don't see it. It is beyond me how people still don't see the major pitfalls with winning percentage when evaluating a pitcher.
Skin, you're absolutely right in that WL% is overrated as a measure of a pitcher's greatness. If you can put together an argument for Bert, I'd love to see it, because I can't find anything redeeming in his track record of stats and awards other than his high strikeout total, and of course a single statistic should never be the basis for induction to the Hall.
Ax, in a couple of years you are going to be arguing that "Blyleven does not belong in the Hall," when the next close pitcher is being compared to current Hall of Famers....because Blyleven will make it eventually. That argument of "the writers agree with me" will no longer be a valid one to use. It is a faulty argument to begin with, but it will be null and void eventually.
phreakydancing, Dallas has some information that is very accurate. There are a few ways to examine his relation to his peers via peak and career dominance, and to players historically. Maybe next week I may dig into Blyleven a little. He is going to get in eventually. That doesn't matter to me anyway, it is the MERIT that matters.
I've never mentioned Blyleven's W/L % against his induction.
But when his peers didn't even recognize him as a great (hence, the 2 all star appearances), it's folly to say he belongs in the hall.
But it seems that dallas is absolutely fascinated with the number of strikeouts blyleven had in his career, and that seems to be his only justification for his hall induction.
When you pitch for 22 years, you are going to compile some great stats. Games started, innings pitched, yadda yadda yadda don't mean you're a hall of famer.
I am done with this discussion...I have looked objectively at his stats and there's just no way in hell he belong in the hall of fame - the hall of very good for a very long time, perhaps, hall of fame, absolutely not.
Ax, you had the same stance on Palmeiro(pre known juicing) too. I see where you are coming from. I don't think he is the pitchers version of Palmeiro though. I have agreed with you on Palmeiro and the reasons for not belonging(pre known juicing). I too put a HOFer as having to be of the very dominant variety, AND consisting of longevity.
The question remains on Blyleven, is how dominant was he? He has the longevity factor, no doubt. The dominance is in question by many. It has to be looked at fairly, with high validity, and with comparisons to other Hall members to get the best look.
No, using just strikeouts doesn't work...and Dallas didn't just use strikeouts.
People don't see Blyleven's dominance, mainly because of his lower wins. You don't judge the wins, but you are citing other factors that have pitfalls. The only one that truly matters is his runs saved component, if merit is what one is after.
Now it is a matter of peak vs. career in runs saved component. BB and H per IP also plays a role too.
1420, I noticed the same thing as well, but while Blyleven had a high SO total accumulated over many years (3701 SO in 4970 IP = 0.745 SO/IP) Ryan had a STUNNINGLY high SO total accumulated over even more years (5714/5386 = 1.06 SO/IP). You make a good point, though, that there are many similarities between the two.
Having re-read some of this thread, the "325 fewer earned runs over his career than an average pitcher" stat for Bert jumps out. I don't know the source for this stat. Knowing how long he played, how does this number compare on a per-year basis to HoF'ers, e.g. Ryan?
<< <i>When you pitch for 22 years, you are going to compile some great stats. Games started, innings pitched, yadda yadda yadda don't mean you're a hall of famer. >>
I'll try one last time, too. Since you said the above, I will assume that both meant it and believed it to be true and relevant to the discussion.
Below are every modern pitcher who has pitched for 20 or more seasons (if I missed one, sue me), along with the number of runs saved compared to an average pitcher over their careers.
Clemens - 725 Maddux - 565 Seaver - 415 Blyleven - 325 Glavine - 325 G. Perry - 310 P. Niekro - 300 Carlton - 275 Ryan - 225 Eckersley - 205 John - 180 Sutton - 150 Wells - 140 Kaat - 120 D. Martinez - 100 Tanana - 100 Hough - 95 Moyer - 95 Darwin - 75 Reuss - (-5) J. Niekro - (-35)
What does this tell us?
First, that bad pitchers don't get to pitch for 20 years, only the good ones do; Reuss and Niekro got to hang around for 20+ years being just average but they are the only ones ho could, all the others were at least well above average pitchers.
Second, that over a period as long as 20 years it is difficult to maintain a level that is significantly above average. Most of the pitchers, including HOFers Sutton and Ryan stayed close to a level of 10 runs below average per season, but most of these very good pitchers were closer to 5.
Third, that topping that barrier of 10 per season - and therefore topping 200-250 in total - is reserved for great pitchers. Making the HOF is still possible below that level if you have compensating greatness elsewhere (Ryan's record breaking performances, Sutton's ..... I give up), but topping that level has always meant swift and uncontroversial entry into the HOF. Always.
Fourth, Blyleven has the highest figure among all recent pitchers NOT among the ten greatest pitchers who ever lived.
Fifth, Axtell is wrong; pitching for more than 20 years does not guarantee that a pitcher will compile great stats. Even when we are talking about a group of pitchers so superficially similar it is incredibly easy to determine which ones were great, which were very good and which were merely good. I didn't show innings pitched, but the pitcher's at the bottom of the list have many fewer innings pitched than the pitchers at the top of the list; which should be obvious because they weren't nearly as good. Blyleven's position on the innings pitched, etc. lists IS an indication of his greatness; lots of lesser pitchers pitched as many years as he did but either were not good enough to stay in starting rotations nearly as long, or became worse than average pitchers by trying.
There, I'm done with Blyleven for awhile {hold for applause}. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Those figures above can be found in the resource of Total Baseball, or Baseball prospectus(super minor variations). It is simply runs saved above league average figure. The more innings pitched above the league average, the more it counts to your total. A pitcher who has a season below league average gets credit for a negative figure. A pitcher exactly average is represented as a ZERO. That does not mean zero value. A zero value has VALUE, plenty of value to a team. This is a very direct, easy, and valid computation.
There is no question Blyleven has HOF based on career innings. Many prefer a Hall that had guys that were dominant in their prime. The career figures represented above can be misleading when judging a pitcher at the top of his game. For instance, in Steve Carlton's last two seasons he was credited with NEGATIVE 79 runs, knocking his career total down. Those two seasons hardly represented what kind of pitcher Steve Carlton was, and that overall career total makes him not look as good as he really was.
SO! A simple remedy to that is to look at their peak value. How good were they at the top of their game. Did they dominate in their prime. How Koufaxian were they. Lets look at the best FIVE seasons of Blyleven and his contemporaries(I'm not using other eras, as there is another step that is needed to the above totals for cross-era reference). These figures are park adjusted, but NOT defense adjusted(defense part doesn't have as high validity content, so I don't use it until it represents near 100% truth!)
Top five seasons:
Seaver 234 Carlton 218 Palmer 211 Perry 194
Blyleven 170
Niekro 166 Sutton 154 Ryan 142 Hunter 139(may have been higher without injury in prime)
D. Martinez 116 Kaat 113 John 99
The writers have it pegged for Presidente, Kaat, and John.
They are flat wrong for Blyleven. He isn't the most dominant among contemporary Hall of Famers. But if the most dominant were the only ones in, then Seaver would be the only Hall of Famer from the era. He is right smack dab in the middle of peak dominance among contemporary Hall of Famers, and at the very top in career value among contemporary Hall of Famers.
This list mirrors the perception of most fans from that era, as to who was the best pitcher....Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton.
Blyleven ain't too far behind them, and is ahead of Niekro, Catfsih, SUtton, and Ryan in terms of their best five years.
The traditional Hall of Famer contains excellent Peak dominance, coupled with excellent longevity. Blyleven contains both attributes, thus it should be a no-brainer. It is that wins perception that keeps getting in the way!!
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!
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).
The more and more that people argue for it, the more and more that I see blyleven getting voted in as watering down the hall.
He wasn't dominant, ever, never won any awards, made it *just* 2 all star games, and was simply above average.
You start letting in people like blyleven, you open the doors to every above average schmoe that ever played, and that, my friends, would be a tremendous disservice to those deserving players.
You start letting in people like blyleven, you open the doors to every above average schmoe that ever played,
Like Edgar Martinez, who is far less deserving than Blyleven.
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>You start letting in people like blyleven, you open the doors to every above average schmoe that ever played,
Like Edgar Martinez, who is far less deserving than Blyleven. >>
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
Unlike blyleven, Edgar dominated his position, and is the best DH to have ever played the game.
Get lost, moron.
The only way Edgar gets close to the Hall is by buying a ticket, hypocrite. His numbers are far from HOF worthy, nevermind the fact that he was unable to even play the field. Clown.
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>Unlike blyleven, Edgar dominated his position, and is the best DH to have ever played the game.
Get lost, moron.
The only way Edgar gets close to the Hall is by buying a ticket, hypocrite. His numbers are far from HOF worthy, nevermind the fact that he was unable to even play the field. Clown. >>
But again, a DH isn't asked to play in the field.
Do you even follow baseball, or do you only care when the mets do well, and hop on the bandwagon?
And you dare to call me a clown?
Thanks for copying and pasting yet another of my posts, after berating me for doing the same thing.
Or a hypocrite. Or a racist. Take your pick. I prefer calling you a plain old idiot who has no life but to run up his 13K post count with idiotic responses about Edgar Martinez being HOF worthy. What a joke!
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.
Or a hypocrite. Or a racist. Take your pick. I prefer calling you a plain old idiot who has no life but to run up his 13K post count with idiotic responses about Edgar Martinez being HOF worthy. What a joke! >>
And what does that say about YOU, spending all your time and energy responding to someone you call an 'idiot' or 'hypocrite'? That fact alone makes you the most pathetic troll to ever hit any message board, anywhere, ever!
And what does that say about YOU, spending all your time and energy responding to someone you call an 'idiot' or 'hypocrite'?
It's fun making you look like a fool. Though there's no way I could devote as many hours a day as you do to these boards, as unlike you, I have a life outside the internet, clown. Maybe you'll get a free hat with "I'm an idiot" emblazoned on front when you hit the 13k post count.
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>But again, a DH isn't asked to play in the field. >>
True, but it avoids the point.
A set-up man isn't asked to get saves - or hit. Does the best set-up man automatically qualify for the HOF?
The best pinch-hitter isn't asked to do much at all, or very often. Is the best pinch-hitter entitled to a spot in the HOF?
"Set-up man" and "pinch-hitter" are "positions" every bit as much as "designated hitter" is. Why does the best designated hitter deserve HOF consideration when the best at several other "positions" do not qualify?
The obvious answer is "because the designated hitter plays much more than those other positions", but if that's the answer then the whole argument falls apart. Because now the argument isn't that Martinez was the best at his position - we've just agreed that that's not enough - but that he's earned it by virtue of what he accomplished as a player over the long course of his career, the same way everyone else is supposed to earn it. But eveyone else earns it by a combination if hitting and fielding, where hitting is generally much more important than fielding except up the middle in the infield and, at least in the old days, at catcher. So the only defensible argument that can be made for Martinez to belong in the HOF is that he has earned it by virtue of his hitting. I think there's certainly a case to be made that he has, although I personally disagree based solely on the relative shortness of his career, but the "he was the best at his position" argument is fatally flawed and Martinez better hope someone is making a strong case for the value of his hitting if he hopes to get in.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< But again, a DH isn't asked to play in the field. >>
True, but it avoids the point.
A set-up man isn't asked to get saves - or hit. Does the best set-up man automatically qualify for the HOF?
The best pinch-hitter isn't asked to do much at all, or very often. Is the best pinch-hitter entitled to a spot in the HOF?
"Set-up man" and "pinch-hitter" are "positions" every bit as much as "designated hitter" is. Why does the best designated hitter deserve HOF consideration when the best at several other "positions" do not qualify?
The obvious answer is "because the designated hitter plays much more than those other positions", but if that's the answer then the whole argument falls apart. Because now the argument isn't that Martinez was the best at his position - we've just agreed that that's not enough - but that he's earned it by virtue of what he accomplished as a player over the long course of his career, the same way everyone else is supposed to earn it. But eveyone else earns it by a combination if hitting and fielding, where hitting is generally much more important than fielding except up the middle in the infield and, at least in the old days, at catcher. So the only defensible argument that can be made for Martinez to belong in the HOF is that he has earned it by virtue of his hitting. I think there's certainly a case to be made that he has, although I personally disagree based solely on the relative shortness of his career, but the "he was the best at his position" argument is fatally flawed and Martinez better hope someone is making a strong case for the value of his hitting if he hopes to get in.
Very well said. I doubt, though, that Axhole has the intelligence to grasp such an elaborate argument.
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.
But a 'set up man' isn't a defined position - it's a role, therefore, you cannot draw an equitable comparison to a DH.
A DH has a set position - the set up guy doesn't. The DH can be compared against other DH's, while setup men are compared against all pitchers.
Would you compare a second baseman to an outfielder in terms of offensive production to determine his value, or would you compare him against other second basemen? I think comparing Edgar (or whatever other DH you wish) against other DH's and then determine their relative value is an appropriate exercise - not comparing them against completely different positions.
As a DH, Edgar was among the very, very best to ever play the position. To me, that is the very definition of what a hall of famer is.
Take away your bias of the DH - it's a position as defined by MLB.
And in the end....poor Edgar's still on the outside looking in!
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.
That's funny, since you reply to every one of my posts like a trained deal, moron!
And 5...4...3...2...1...
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.
Here comes the World Famous Axhole Again, spewing his asinine nonsense, giving hope to all his moronic peers!
Once more, Ax, just one more time...
5....4....3...2....1...
Go, Axhole, go!
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>But a 'set up man' isn't a defined position - it's a role, therefore, you cannot draw an equitable comparison to a DH.
A DH has a set position - the set up guy doesn't. The DH can be compared against other DH's, while setup men are compared against all pitchers. >>
OK, let's try this from another angle then.
Suppose that at some point in the future MLB decides that, in addition to AL pitchers, AL left fielders will no longer bat but will be replaced in the order by a second designated hitter. Now, I already know your stance on the second DH - he is playing a "defined position", and if he is the best at that position he gets a free pass to the HOF - but what I'd like to know is, what about the left fielder? The "defined position" he is playing is logically identical to the DH; a complete position has been split in half, with one player performing the fielding and the other the hitting. Does the player who is the best at this new "position" also get a free pass to the HOF?
Since it would be unfairly cruel of me to think for even a second that you believe something as ridiculous as that, I feel comfortable saying that we are in complete agreement that the answer is "no", a player who does nothing more than play left field could not possibly ever deserve to make it to the HOF. And yet this player's position remains logically identical to the DH, so how could a DH be eligible for the HOF?
A DH could be eligible where a "designated left fielder" could not; because while the positions are logically identical there is a vast difference between them in practical terms. That is, a DH could be eligible for the HOF because his contributions to the production of runs will vastly exceed the left fielder's contribution to the prevention of opponent's runs. But now, again and obviously, we are right back where we started, judging a DH's HOF worthiness in exactly the same way we judge anyone else's. The fact that he is the best at a "defined position", therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Q.E.D. and I'm done with this topic, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Ripken and Gwynn, and that's it. If it was a veterans committee ballot I"d write in Tony Mullane, Tip O'Neill, and Marvin Miller. >>
Tony Mullane? I think he may have the worst K/BB ratio of any major league pitcher ever, at least among those who pitched for very long. He was a very good pitcher in other ways, but mostly he just pitched a lot, like all pitchers did back then. He certainly wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the HOF, but he was a lot closer to the worst than the best, and there's at least twenty pitchers I'd put ahead of Mullane in the HOF line.
Tip O'Neill was a fine hitter, but he's got little more than half the at-bats of any other HOFer, except for maybe a few early catchers. He only played six full seasons. HOF-level, but not HOF career.
I'm with you on Marvin Miller, though. I didn't care for him much, personally, but he played a huge role in baseball history.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>The ballot copy comes from the Wikipedia article regarding the 2007 HOF election. This is the exact roster of players who will be on the real ballots the writers use for voting. Anyway, you know the ground rules. Just like the real writers who vote for the HOF, you can vote for between zero to ten members and NO WRITE-IN VOTES.
My votes are in bold. FIRST TIME: Harold Baines Derek Bell Dante Bichette Bobby Bonilla Jeff Brantley Jay Buhner Ken Caminiti Jose Canseco Norm Charlton Chad Curtis Eric Davis Tony Fernandez Mark Gardner Tony Gwynn Darryl Hamilton Pete Harnisch Charlie Hayes Doug Henry Glenallen Hill Ken Hill John Jaha Stan Javier Wally Joyner Dave Martinez Ramon Martinez Chuck McElroy Mark McGwire Joe Oliver Gregg Olson Paul O'Neill Scott Radinsky Cal Ripken, Jr. Bret Saberhagen Jeff Shaw Ed Sprague Kevin Tapani Devon White Bobby Witt
RETURNING (This is Mr. Garvey's last chance for the writer's ballot): Albert Belle Bert Blyleven Dave Concepcion Andre Dawson Steve Garvey Rich "Goose" Gossage Orel Hershiser Tommy John Don Mattingly Jack Morris Dale Murphy Dave Parker Jim Rice Lee Smith Alan Trammell
Looking for a Glen Rice Inkredible and Alex Rodriguez cards
Comments
Ripken
Gywnn
Blyleven
Santo
McGwire, IMO, can cool his heels for a few more years. He goes eventually, but the cheaters shouldn't be in on the first ballot.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bert Blyleven? Did anybody who put him on their list actually watch this guy play? He was an above average, sometimes excellent pitcher at best who had a workhorse arm and was able to build up stats after playing for a long time. That to me should not be a Hall of Famer. I don't want to see above average or even excellent players in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for Great players, and GREAT players only. Name me one hitter who ever said before a game, "Oh my goodness, I gotta face Bert Blyleven today." I'm sick and tired of allowing these types of players in the Hall of Fame. Wasn't anything learned from voting in Bill Mazeroski? If Mazeroski hadn't hit that 1960 WS HR - he would have only gotten in the Hall of Fame if he bought a public admission ticket. >>
I realize that the possibility of my changing your mind is rather small, but I'm enjoying this so I hope you'll keep playing along.
First, I could not agree more with your basic point about the HOF. There are a great many players in there that infuriate me. I could point out literally hundreds of players that were better than Jim Hunter or George Kelly or Bruce Sutter or Harry Hooper and so on, but that is NOT an argument that they deserve to be inducted. The HOF should be reserved for "great" players, absolutely.
The problem is, Bert Blyleven WAS a great pitcher. It's actually quite impossible to construct a reasonable argument otherwise based on how I define "great". Now, if you're arguing that the HOF should only have 20 pitchers in it, then you're right, Bert Blyleven does not belong in THAT HOF. But there's the other problem - I don't know what you mean by "great".
So, what do you mean by "great"? I would need to see a definition of "great" that excluded Bert Blyleven from the 50 greatest pitchers who ever played to believe it could exist. Bill James puts him in the top 40, I would put him in the top 30 - where do you think he belongs and can you name some other pitchers that you would place right in front of or behind him? {Please don't name Jim Kaat or Tommy John, because it is just too easy to prove Blyleven was better than them - name someone in the HOF if possible.} There are 60 pitchers not from the Negro Leagues in the HOF - how many of them do you think are mistakes?
I'll understand if you don't want to spend the time it will take to answer these questions completely, but unless you do (or anyone else arguing against Blyleven's HOF worthiness does) we're just arguing in different languages, and "great" has no meaning. And if there is any way to check on this, I'm willing to bet a great deal of money that there were many, many players who put Blyleven at the top of their "I don't want to face him" list or second only to Ryan. When Ryan struck you out there was at least a good chance you went down like a man taking a hard swing at the ball - Blyleven just made batters look foolish. I'm not sure what years you watched him play, but if you missed him on Minnesota in the early 70's, then you missed a show that only Ryan and Carlton could match.
As for Mazeroski, his induction doesn't bother me. Again, this goes back to the meaning of "great" which we are using without first defining. But Bill Mazeroski was a great second baseman by any definition - probably the greatest who ever played the game, and almost certainly the greatest ever at the time he retired. Now, the "tallest midget" comment, while amusing and a little harsh, also makes a good point. Being the greatest second baseman is a universe less important than being the greatest hitter or pitcher, and much less important than being the greatest shortstop or catcher. But it is more important than being the greatest left-handed long-relief specialist, greatest pinch hitter or greatest first baseman. So I think the Hall of Fame should set aside spots for players like Mazeroski; I think there is value in preserving for all-time that Mazeroski played his position better than any other player had for a hundred years. I would rather that the HOF had separate wings for such players, or would identify that they were getting in for some reason other than their overall playing ability, but they don't. Still, the HOF better represents baseball by including players like Mazeroski than it would by excluding them. >>
You often make interesting points and this post of yours certainly adds to that. Since I will never be a participant in any Hall of Fame induction voting, here is my opinion and definition of "great" as far as deserving to be in Hall of Fame is concerned. "Great" means voters who watched him play over a period of time and don't have to "contemplate" whether he was great or not. The voters don't have to look at his stats and decide that "yes indeed he was great." The times I watched Blyleven pitch, it never struck me in the least that I was watching greatness here or a possible Hall of Fame candidate.
His first year of eligibility he received only 17% of the vote, so many voters that year evidentally agreed that Blyleven wasn't great. Then of course over the years some of the people who watched him play retire, and people who didn't watch him play become voters and start looking at his stats - and may decide "yes indeed he was great." This is no way to vote for Hall of Famers in my opinion. The induction window should only be five years in my opinion - and at this point in history...please...no more old timers inductions - in my view this depletes the on the field accomplishments of those who deserve to be in there.
Have special events and of displays of various old timers and others who contributed to the game? Of course...that is wonderful...but please, I don't want to see their plaque right beside the truly great players.
Blyleven never won even one Cy Young and was only in two All Star games - I'm not sure if he even pitched or not in those games. Even if he did pitch in those games, it's still only two All Star games - that doesn't seem like a Hall of Famer to me. Being in two All Star games certainly implies a very good to excellent pitcher...but a Hall of Famer?...come on now!
Rather than answer your question about "naming some pitchers" directly, I'll answer your question in an indirect way to illustrate my point about who doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Richie Ashburn is one of my favorite players of all time and I was happy to see him get into the Hall. But did I think he "should be" in the Hall of Fame? - absolutely not. I never campaigned for Richie to get in because although he was an excellent ballplayer, I never thought he was "great" and still don't. I visited the Hall three summers ago and thoroughly enjoyed it - but in my view when looking at the plaques on the wall...it disturbed me to believe that some of those plaques really shouldn't be up there. Some of the plaques get up there in my opinion for personal and business reasons...and sometimes for those with an agenda, not for greatness while a ballplayer.
Next time I visit the Hall, if I see Blyleven's plaque in there, sorry to say I will think the same thing about him that I think about Richie - that he shouldn't be in here.
Steve
<< <i>Bert Blyleven? Did anybody who put him on their list actually watch this guy play? He was an above average, sometimes excellent pitcher at best who had a workhorse arm and was able to build up stats after playing for a long time. That to me should not be a Hall of Famer. I don't want to see above average or even excellent players in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for Great players, and GREAT players only. Name me one hitter who ever said before a game, "Oh my goodness, I gotta face Bert Blyleven today." I'm sick and tired of allowing these types of players in the Hall of Fame. Wasn't anything learned from voting in Bill Mazeroski? If Mazeroski hadn't hit that 1960 WS HR - he would have only gotten in the Hall of Fame if he bought a public admission ticket. >>
I really don't understand the support for Blyleven. Break down the numbers, and he's not even close.
In 22 seasons in the majors:
Only twice an All Star
Only once won 20 games
Only once led the league in strikeouts
Never won a Cy Young
Barely over .500 winning percentage
Didn't make it to 300 wins despite his longevity
Racked up a lot of strikeouts, but that's it. You can't put a guy into the Hall for one good number. These are not the stats of someone who was ever considered dominant, much less for an extended period. Steve is spot-on. Blyleven was very good, and was very good for a long time, but he was never "great".
My choices:
Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire and maybe Gossage
<< <i>"Great" means voters who watched him play over a period of time and don't have to "contemplate" whether he was great or not. The voters don't have to look at his stats and decide that "yes indeed he was great." The times I watched Blyleven pitch, it never struck me in the least that I was watching greatness here or a possible Hall of Fame candidate.
His first year of eligibility he received only 17% of the vote, so many voters that year evidentally agreed that Blyleven wasn't great.
Blyleven never won even one Cy Young and was only in two All Star games >>
The problem, as I see it, with these standards is that everyone has their own definition of "great" and in the case of HOF voters historically, most of the definitions make no sense. Which is a roundabout way of asking - what do we do when the HOF voters are wrong? Now, we both agree that they are wrong about pitchers all the time, and in every case but one they have been wrong in the same direction - thinking a pitcher was great and putting him in the HOF even though he wasn't great. The one instance where they have so far been wrong in the other direction is Bert Blyleven. I liken it to the old saying "better a hundred guilty men go free than an an innocent man go to prison", except that we have let a hundred mediocrities into the HOF AND left Blyleven rotting in prison. We can't correct the large group of mistakes, but we can, and should, correct the one true injustice no matter how many years it takes. (OK, that was way too dramatic, but you get my point).
As further proof that voters don't know what the hell they're doing, consider that Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award (he deserved two), and only went to two AS games (he was a top-5 pitcher at least 10 times). And I will not agree that because CYA and AS selectors made mistakes in the past, that HOF voters are in any way obligated to accept those mistakes. I think they have the opposite obligation to ignore who actually won awards and determine who SHOULD have won them so that they do not further pollute the HOF with Jim Hunter's and the like.
A pitcher's job - his only job - is to get batter's out fast enough that they can't score. And Blyleven did that better than all but 30 or 40 pitchers in history. What you saw and what the CYA voters saw, but didn't recognize, was Blyleven doing his job at a HOF level. Fortunately, the proof will always be there in the record books.
<< <i>
As further proof that voters don't know what the hell they're doing, consider that Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award (he deserved two), and only went to two AS games (he was a top-5 pitcher at least 10 times). And I will not agree that because CYA and AS selectors made mistakes in the past, that HOF voters are in any way obligated to accept those mistakes. I think they have the opposite obligation to ignore who actually won awards and determine who SHOULD have won them so that they do not further pollute the HOF with Jim Hunter's and the like.
A pitcher's job - his only job - is to get batter's out fast enough that they can't score. And Blyleven did that better than all but 30 or 40 pitchers in history. What you saw and what the CYA voters saw, but didn't recognize, was Blyleven doing his job at a HOF level. Fortunately, the proof will always be there in the record books. >>
What years do you think he should have won a Cy Young?
I am going to look at the years he finished third:
1985 Blyleven: 17-16, 3.16 ERA, 206 K's, split among two teams.
1985 Saberhagen (winner): 20-6, 2.87 ERA, 158 K's, on a first place team
Saberhagen had a better ERA and was the rock of a team that took first place.
1984 Blyleven: 19-7, 2.87 ERA, 170 K's, for a team that finished 6th.
1984 Hernandez: 9-3, 32 saves, 1.92 ERA, 112 K's, AND won the MVP.
I don't see how you can honestly sit there and say that blyleven was a better pitcher either of these 2 years.
And a pitcher's only job was to get batters out as quickly as possible? I thought it was to not let runners score (therefore, ERA being the most telling statistic).
It also speaks VOLUMES that, despite being in the league TWENTY TWO years, he only garnered TWO all star appearances?
He's not a hall of famer, by any measure.
Speaking of stats - I know Dimaggio and Koufax didn't have great career accumulated stats in some categories. But only an ignorant moron would say either one of them shouldn't be in the Hall - and I know Dallas you aren't saying that at all but just to solidify the point about how stats can sometimes mislead in certain ways.
Well to wrapup my end of it here on this thread I think this is the bottom line to Blyleven: Should players get in the Hall of Fame who through having a long number of very good or excellent years, but really not many or any great/outstanding years, simply accumulated some impressive statistics. I say the answer should be "No." But if Blyleven got in, at least that would be a better choice than Bill Mazeroski who frankly, was a pathetic choice I don't care if he never hardly had an error. What "pushed" him in was that dramatic WS 1960 home run that stayed in everybody's mind - I have no doubt about that - he doesn't hit that HR and he's not in the Hall.
I would definitely agree with that but of course we both know it will never happen. I don't remember seeing anything about Mazeroski's homer in the Hall, but of course a number of displays rotate because they don't have room for everything. They have a warehouse full of stuff somewhere. I remember seeing Maris's 61 HR bat on display - I just gawked at it for about 10 minutes...gawking at a bat - LOL...but it was amazing standing right next to such a piece of baseball history. If anyone is ever thinking about going to Cooperstown but hasn't been there yet, don't think about it anymore...just make plans to go...I promise you'll enjoy it and feel it was worth the trip. If nothing else they have a dam nice collection of baseball cards on display.
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire (not on the first try, but eventually) if he was healthy he probably would have hit 600 homers without the juice)
Cal Ripken, Jr.
----------------------------------------
Bert Blyleven (yep, he gets my vote)
Steve Garvey (him too)
Rich "Goose" Gossage (should already be in)
Orel Hershiser (this is my charity vote, he was the fiercest competitor ive ever seen, so he is in MY hall of fame)
Don Mattingly (he gets my vote cause ive met him and he is one classy dude, and a heck of a player to boot)
Dale Murphy (i'd vote for him because he was my favorite player in the 80's!) another classy guy too.
Alan Trammell (so close to voting for him! another one o fmy favorite players too)
<< <i>What years do you think he should have won a Cy Young? >>
1973 and 1984
<< <i>I am going to look at the years he finished third: >>
I knew as soon as I read this that we are still speaking entirely different languages. If nothing else, and even if I can't convince anyone that Blyleven belongs in the HOF, I would like to convince a few of you to look for yourselves rather than citing Cy Young Awards, All-Star appearances, etc. as evidence of greatness. Cy Young voters have been laughably wrong on many occasions; All-Star selection is done by a single manager with many factors besides who the best pitchers are to consider. They don't mean anything. Unless you are conceding that you don't know anything about baseball, why not just look it up yourself? The voting sportswriters do not have magical powers, and they are no more capable of selecting the best pitcher as any other knowledgable fan.
<< <i>1985 Blyleven: 17-16, 3.16 ERA, 206 K's, split among two teams.
1985 Saberhagen (winner): 20-6, 2.87 ERA, 158 K's, on a first place team
Saberhagen had a better ERA and was the rock of a team that took first place.
1984 Blyleven: 19-7, 2.87 ERA, 170 K's, for a team that finished 6th.
1984 Hernandez: 9-3, 32 saves, 1.92 ERA, 112 K's, AND won the MVP.
I don't see how you can honestly sit there and say that blyleven was a better pitcher either of these 2 years. >>
Blyleven was maybe the fifth best pitcher in 1985, so no argument there. But I had to laugh when you cited the single worst CYA pick of all-time and then can't honestly see how someone would disagree. That Hernandez won the MVP may be nauseating, but it is hardly proof that he deserved it.
<< <i>And a pitcher's only job was to get batters out as quickly as possible? I thought it was to not let runners score (therefore, ERA being the most telling statistic). >>
What I said was that a pitcher's job is to get hitters out fast enough that they can't score. And yes, ERA is the most telling statistic. So why do you and everyone else keep citing All-Star appearances and awards rather than ERA? Blyleven's ERA, adjusted for the hitter's park he pitched most of his career in, was exceptional. As I've mentioned, he allowed 325 fewer earned runs over his career than an average pitcher. He's the only pitcher not in the HOF with a figure higher than 250, and there are many pitchers in the HOF with figures much, much lower than that. (The pitcher's to whom Blyleven is most often incorrectly compared, Jim Kaat and Tommy John, had figures of about 120 and 180.)
<< <i>It also speaks VOLUMES that, despite being in the league TWENTY TWO years, he only garnered TWO all star appearances? >>
It speaks VOLUMES about how FRIVOLOUS the All-Star selection process IS, I'll grant you. It says absolutely nothing about Blyleven.
<< <i>He's not a hall of famer, by any measure. >>
He is a HOFer by ANY measure. It is only to those people who refuse to actually MEASURE anything that he could possibly appear not to be.
Like most fans, they make grossly wrong assumptions, their voting track record is filled with ambiguity, and they are just flat out wrong much of the time.
I'm tempted to put a case together for BLyleven...I may have even done so in the past, but I don't know. As Dallas correctly pointed out, the environment a pitcher throws in has great influence over his results.
People simply get stuck on Blyleven's WP% as reason for not being included, and that above everything else is the reason why writers and fans don't see it. It is beyond me how people still don't see the major pitfalls with winning percentage when evaluating a pitcher.
phreakydancing, Dallas has some information that is very accurate. There are a few ways to examine his relation to his peers via peak and career dominance, and to players historically. Maybe next week I may dig into Blyleven a little. He is going to get in eventually. That doesn't matter to me anyway, it is the MERIT that matters.
But when his peers didn't even recognize him as a great (hence, the 2 all star appearances), it's folly to say he belongs in the hall.
But it seems that dallas is absolutely fascinated with the number of strikeouts blyleven had in his career, and that seems to be his only justification for his hall induction.
When you pitch for 22 years, you are going to compile some great stats. Games started, innings pitched, yadda yadda yadda don't mean you're a hall of famer.
I am done with this discussion...I have looked objectively at his stats and there's just no way in hell he belong in the hall of fame - the hall of very good for a very long time, perhaps, hall of fame, absolutely not.
The question remains on Blyleven, is how dominant was he? He has the longevity factor, no doubt. The dominance is in question by many. It has to be looked at fairly, with high validity, and with comparisons to other Hall members to get the best look.
No, using just strikeouts doesn't work...and Dallas didn't just use strikeouts.
People don't see Blyleven's dominance, mainly because of his lower wins. You don't judge the wins, but you are citing other factors that have pitfalls. The only one that truly matters is his runs saved component, if merit is what one is after.
Now it is a matter of peak vs. career in runs saved component. BB and H per IP also plays a role too.
Blyleven
Ryan
Not taking anything from Ryan but it looks like Blyleven has him beat in many areas. He was a pretty good strikeout pitcher too!
Blyleven doesn't have the no-no's or the All Star appearances that Nolan did.
Having re-read some of this thread, the "325 fewer earned runs over his career than an average pitcher" stat for Bert jumps out. I don't know the source for this stat. Knowing how long he played, how does this number compare on a per-year basis to HoF'ers, e.g. Ryan?
Blyleven and Kaat are two pitchers that would not surprise me if they were elected in or left out.
<< <i>When you pitch for 22 years, you are going to compile some great stats. Games started, innings pitched, yadda yadda yadda don't mean you're a hall of famer. >>
I'll try one last time, too. Since you said the above, I will assume that both meant it and believed it to be true and relevant to the discussion.
Below are every modern pitcher who has pitched for 20 or more seasons (if I missed one, sue me), along with the number of runs saved compared to an average pitcher over their careers.
Clemens - 725
Maddux - 565
Seaver - 415
Blyleven - 325
Glavine - 325
G. Perry - 310
P. Niekro - 300
Carlton - 275
Ryan - 225
Eckersley - 205
John - 180
Sutton - 150
Wells - 140
Kaat - 120
D. Martinez - 100
Tanana - 100
Hough - 95
Moyer - 95
Darwin - 75
Reuss - (-5)
J. Niekro - (-35)
What does this tell us?
First, that bad pitchers don't get to pitch for 20 years, only the good ones do; Reuss and Niekro got to hang around for 20+ years being just average but they are the only ones ho could, all the others were at least well above average pitchers.
Second, that over a period as long as 20 years it is difficult to maintain a level that is significantly above average. Most of the pitchers, including HOFers Sutton and Ryan stayed close to a level of 10 runs below average per season, but most of these very good pitchers were closer to 5.
Third, that topping that barrier of 10 per season - and therefore topping 200-250 in total - is reserved for great pitchers. Making the HOF is still possible below that level if you have compensating greatness elsewhere (Ryan's record breaking performances, Sutton's ..... I give up), but topping that level has always meant swift and uncontroversial entry into the HOF. Always.
Fourth, Blyleven has the highest figure among all recent pitchers NOT among the ten greatest pitchers who ever lived.
Fifth, Axtell is wrong; pitching for more than 20 years does not guarantee that a pitcher will compile great stats. Even when we are talking about a group of pitchers so superficially similar it is incredibly easy to determine which ones were great, which were very good and which were merely good. I didn't show innings pitched, but the pitcher's at the bottom of the list have many fewer innings pitched than the pitchers at the top of the list; which should be obvious because they weren't nearly as good. Blyleven's position on the innings pitched, etc. lists IS an indication of his greatness; lots of lesser pitchers pitched as many years as he did but either were not good enough to stay in starting rotations nearly as long, or became worse than average pitchers by trying.
There, I'm done with Blyleven for awhile {hold for applause}. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
There is no question Blyleven has HOF based on career innings. Many prefer a Hall that had guys that were dominant in their prime. The career figures represented above can be misleading when judging a pitcher at the top of his game. For instance, in Steve Carlton's last two seasons he was credited with NEGATIVE 79 runs, knocking his career total down. Those two seasons hardly represented what kind of pitcher Steve Carlton was, and that overall career total makes him not look as good as he really was.
SO! A simple remedy to that is to look at their peak value. How good were they at the top of their game. Did they dominate in their prime. How Koufaxian were they. Lets look at the best FIVE seasons of Blyleven and his contemporaries(I'm not using other eras, as there is another step that is needed to the above totals for cross-era reference). These figures are park adjusted, but NOT defense adjusted(defense part doesn't have as high validity content, so I don't use it until it represents near 100% truth!)
Top five seasons:
Seaver 234
Carlton 218
Palmer 211
Perry 194
Blyleven 170
Niekro 166
Sutton 154
Ryan 142
Hunter 139(may have been higher without injury in prime)
D. Martinez 116
Kaat 113
John 99
The writers have it pegged for Presidente, Kaat, and John.
They are flat wrong for Blyleven. He isn't the most dominant among contemporary Hall of Famers. But if the most dominant were the only ones in, then Seaver would be the only Hall of Famer from the era. He is right smack dab in the middle of peak dominance among contemporary Hall of Famers, and at the very top in career value among contemporary Hall of Famers.
This list mirrors the perception of most fans from that era, as to who was the best pitcher....Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton.
Blyleven ain't too far behind them, and is ahead of Niekro, Catfsih, SUtton, and Ryan in terms of their best five years.
The traditional Hall of Famer contains excellent Peak dominance, coupled with excellent longevity. Blyleven contains both attributes, thus it should be a no-brainer. It is that wins perception that keeps getting in the way!!
what else is new?
great analyisis dallas. thanks i enjoyed it.
skip you too.
as for wins and blyleven i have no problem with it.
steve
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
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
Gwynn
Blyleven
Dawson
Morris
He wasn't dominant, ever, never won any awards, made it *just* 2 all star games, and was simply above average.
You start letting in people like blyleven, you open the doors to every above average schmoe that ever played, and that, my friends, would be a tremendous disservice to those deserving players.
Like Edgar Martinez, who is far less deserving than Blyleven.
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>You start letting in people like blyleven, you open the doors to every above average schmoe that ever played,
Like Edgar Martinez, who is far less deserving than Blyleven. >>
<< <i>You start letting in people like blyleven, you open the doors to every above average schmoe that ever played,
Like Edgar Martinez, who is far less deserving than Blyleven. >>
Unlike blyleven, Edgar dominated his position, and is the best DH to have ever played the game.
Get lost, moron.
Get lost, moron.
The only way Edgar gets close to the Hall is by buying a ticket, hypocrite. His numbers are far from HOF worthy, nevermind the fact that he was unable to even play the field. Clown.
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>Unlike blyleven, Edgar dominated his position, and is the best DH to have ever played the game.
Get lost, moron.
The only way Edgar gets close to the Hall is by buying a ticket, hypocrite. His numbers are far from HOF worthy, nevermind the fact that he was unable to even play the field. Clown. >>
But again, a DH isn't asked to play in the field.
Do you even follow baseball, or do you only care when the mets do well, and hop on the bandwagon?
And you dare to call me a clown?
Thanks for copying and pasting yet another of my posts, after berating me for doing the same thing.
Hypocrite.
Or a hypocrite. Or a racist. Take your pick. I prefer calling you a plain old idiot who has no life but to run up his 13K post count with idiotic responses about Edgar Martinez being HOF worthy. What a joke!
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>And you dare to call me a clown?
Or a hypocrite. Or a racist. Take your pick. I prefer calling you a plain old idiot who has no life but to run up his 13K post count with idiotic responses about Edgar Martinez being HOF worthy. What a joke! >>
And what does that say about YOU, spending all your time and energy responding to someone you call an 'idiot' or 'hypocrite'? That fact alone makes you the most pathetic troll to ever hit any message board, anywhere, ever!
It's fun making you look like a fool. Though there's no way I could devote as many hours a day as you do to these boards, as unlike you, I have a life outside the internet, clown. Maybe you'll get a free hat with "I'm an idiot" emblazoned on front when you hit the 13k post count.
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>But again, a DH isn't asked to play in the field. >>
True, but it avoids the point.
A set-up man isn't asked to get saves - or hit. Does the best set-up man automatically qualify for the HOF?
The best pinch-hitter isn't asked to do much at all, or very often. Is the best pinch-hitter entitled to a spot in the HOF?
"Set-up man" and "pinch-hitter" are "positions" every bit as much as "designated hitter" is. Why does the best designated hitter deserve HOF consideration when the best at several other "positions" do not qualify?
The obvious answer is "because the designated hitter plays much more than those other positions", but if that's the answer then the whole argument falls apart. Because now the argument isn't that Martinez was the best at his position - we've just agreed that that's not enough - but that he's earned it by virtue of what he accomplished as a player over the long course of his career, the same way everyone else is supposed to earn it. But eveyone else earns it by a combination if hitting and fielding, where hitting is generally much more important than fielding except up the middle in the infield and, at least in the old days, at catcher. So the only defensible argument that can be made for Martinez to belong in the HOF is that he has earned it by virtue of his hitting. I think there's certainly a case to be made that he has, although I personally disagree based solely on the relative shortness of his career, but the "he was the best at his position" argument is fatally flawed and Martinez better hope someone is making a strong case for the value of his hitting if he hopes to get in.
True, but it avoids the point.
A set-up man isn't asked to get saves - or hit. Does the best set-up man automatically qualify for the HOF?
The best pinch-hitter isn't asked to do much at all, or very often. Is the best pinch-hitter entitled to a spot in the HOF?
"Set-up man" and "pinch-hitter" are "positions" every bit as much as "designated hitter" is. Why does the best designated hitter deserve HOF consideration when the best at several other "positions" do not qualify?
The obvious answer is "because the designated hitter plays much more than those other positions", but if that's the answer then the whole argument falls apart. Because now the argument isn't that Martinez was the best at his position - we've just agreed that that's not enough - but that he's earned it by virtue of what he accomplished as a player over the long course of his career, the same way everyone else is supposed to earn it. But eveyone else earns it by a combination if hitting and fielding, where hitting is generally much more important than fielding except up the middle in the infield and, at least in the old days, at catcher. So the only defensible argument that can be made for Martinez to belong in the HOF is that he has earned it by virtue of his hitting. I think there's certainly a case to be made that he has, although I personally disagree based solely on the relative shortness of his career, but the "he was the best at his position" argument is fatally flawed and Martinez better hope someone is making a strong case for the value of his hitting if he hopes to get in.
Very well said. I doubt, though, that Axhole has the intelligence to grasp such an elaborate argument.
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.
A DH has a set position - the set up guy doesn't. The DH can be compared against other DH's, while setup men are compared against all pitchers.
Would you compare a second baseman to an outfielder in terms of offensive production to determine his value, or would you compare him against other second basemen? I think comparing Edgar (or whatever other DH you wish) against other DH's and then determine their relative value is an appropriate exercise - not comparing them against completely different positions.
As a DH, Edgar was among the very, very best to ever play the position. To me, that is the very definition of what a hall of famer is.
Take away your bias of the DH - it's a position as defined by MLB.
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>And in the end....poor Edgar's still on the outside looking in! >>
Perhaps, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's among the finest DH's to ever play the game.
Do you have a life outside furiously refreshing message boards, waiting for your hero (me) to reply to?
You're pathetic, trollboy.
That's funny, since you reply to every one of my posts like a trained deal, moron!
And 5...4...3...2...1...
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>waiting for your hero (me) to reply to?
That's funny, since you reply to every one of my posts like a trained deal, moron!
And 5...4...3...2...1... >>
This coming from a guy who has been sitting in front of his computer allllll night waiting, furiously spanking it, for me to reply?
What's a trained deal?
Hahahahaha
you're so furiously working yourself up you can't even spell now?
hahahahahahahahahhahaha
Once more, Ax, just one more time...
5....4....3...2....1...
Go, Axhole, go!
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.
Here are my votes, I am using all ten. The bold are the ones who will get in.
Gwynn
McGwire...a good way for the voters to test the waters before Bonds
Ripken
Rice
Dawson
Gossage
Mattingly
Hershiser
Smith
Trammel
If it was a veterans committee ballot I"d write in Tony Mullane, Tip O'Neill, and Marvin Miller.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>But a 'set up man' isn't a defined position - it's a role, therefore, you cannot draw an equitable comparison to a DH.
A DH has a set position - the set up guy doesn't. The DH can be compared against other DH's, while setup men are compared against all pitchers. >>
OK, let's try this from another angle then.
Suppose that at some point in the future MLB decides that, in addition to AL pitchers, AL left fielders will no longer bat but will be replaced in the order by a second designated hitter. Now, I already know your stance on the second DH - he is playing a "defined position", and if he is the best at that position he gets a free pass to the HOF - but what I'd like to know is, what about the left fielder? The "defined position" he is playing is logically identical to the DH; a complete position has been split in half, with one player performing the fielding and the other the hitting. Does the player who is the best at this new "position" also get a free pass to the HOF?
Since it would be unfairly cruel of me to think for even a second that you believe something as ridiculous as that, I feel comfortable saying that we are in complete agreement that the answer is "no", a player who does nothing more than play left field could not possibly ever deserve to make it to the HOF. And yet this player's position remains logically identical to the DH, so how could a DH be eligible for the HOF?
A DH could be eligible where a "designated left fielder" could not; because while the positions are logically identical there is a vast difference between them in practical terms. That is, a DH could be eligible for the HOF because his contributions to the production of runs will vastly exceed the left fielder's contribution to the prevention of opponent's runs. But now, again and obviously, we are right back where we started, judging a DH's HOF worthiness in exactly the same way we judge anyone else's. The fact that he is the best at a "defined position", therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Q.E.D. and I'm done with this topic, too.
<< <i>Ripken and Gwynn, and that's it.
If it was a veterans committee ballot I"d write in Tony Mullane, Tip O'Neill, and Marvin Miller. >>
Tony Mullane? I think he may have the worst K/BB ratio of any major league pitcher ever, at least among those who pitched for very long. He was a very good pitcher in other ways, but mostly he just pitched a lot, like all pitchers did back then. He certainly wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the HOF, but he was a lot closer to the worst than the best, and there's at least twenty pitchers I'd put ahead of Mullane in the HOF line.
Tip O'Neill was a fine hitter, but he's got little more than half the at-bats of any other HOFer, except for maybe a few early catchers. He only played six full seasons. HOF-level, but not HOF career.
I'm with you on Marvin Miller, though. I didn't care for him much, personally, but he played a huge role in baseball history.
<< <i>The ballot copy comes from the Wikipedia article regarding the 2007 HOF election. This is the exact roster of players who will be on the real ballots the writers use for voting. Anyway, you know the ground rules. Just like the real writers who vote for the HOF, you can vote for between zero to ten members and NO WRITE-IN VOTES.
My votes are in bold.
FIRST TIME:
Harold Baines
Derek Bell
Dante Bichette
Bobby Bonilla
Jeff Brantley
Jay Buhner
Ken Caminiti
Jose Canseco
Norm Charlton
Chad Curtis
Eric Davis
Tony Fernandez
Mark Gardner
Tony Gwynn
Darryl Hamilton
Pete Harnisch
Charlie Hayes
Doug Henry
Glenallen Hill
Ken Hill
John Jaha
Stan Javier
Wally Joyner
Dave Martinez
Ramon Martinez
Chuck McElroy
Mark McGwire
Joe Oliver
Gregg Olson
Paul O'Neill
Scott Radinsky
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Bret Saberhagen
Jeff Shaw
Ed Sprague
Kevin Tapani
Devon White
Bobby Witt
RETURNING (This is Mr. Garvey's last chance for the writer's ballot):
Albert Belle
Bert Blyleven
Dave Concepcion
Andre Dawson
Steve Garvey
Rich "Goose" Gossage
Orel Hershiser
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Steve