An ERA+ of 146 over 1 400 innings does less to help a team than an ERA+ of 118 over 5 000 innings
Blyleven's best five seasons total 1 326 innings pitched with a composite ERA+ of 150. So his best 1 326 innings has a better adjusted ERA than Wood's best 1 326 innings. And Blyleven went on to have another 12 full seasons where he was pitching a lot with an ERA lower than league average. That means his career was similar to doing everything Wood did, plus everything Fernando Valenzuela did
Do you really believe that because Blyleven had many years like 1972 he was merely very good that it takes away from the years like 1973 when he was truly great?
Smokey Joe Wook being able to turn himself into a good hitter after he was in too much pain to pitch should definitely be seen as a positive. But all that might do is put him ahead of Wilbur Wood (and even then I might not be so sure), not Blyleven
<< <i>Wood's adjusted ERA + is 146, fouth best in the entire history of MLB, it is for an entire full career, NOT merely his prime or peak seasons. >>
Jack, I think you're avoiding the point. Joe Wood only had prime seasons, then he stopped pitching at 25. Calling what he had a "full" career is silly. Mark Fidrych has a career ERA+ of 126, better than Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, and just a single point behind Tom Seaver; shall we consider putting him the HOF, too? John Hiller pitched 15 seasons and had an ERA+ better than Gibson, Koufax and Ford - and pitched almost as many innings as Wood; is he a HOFer? If Brandon Webb quits baseball today, does he get to go straight to the HOF? He's got the 8th highest ERA+ EVER!
Ignoring innings pitched is ignoring half of the equation. Eddie Gaedel was not a HOFer despite his 1.000 OBP, Mark Fidrych does not deserve to be in the same sentence as Bob Feller, and Joe Wood is further from HOF qualifications than Rick Reuschel. Truth be told, I'd be a lot more inclined to put the aforementioned John Hiller in the HOF than Joe Wood.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
My bad, I should have been more clear when I said writers/voters I meant both categories in the either/or sense, actually, but my point is still the same, which was the Blyleven deserves to be enshrined in the HOF.
Edit: But thanks for catching that, you get a gold star!
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'll pass on the star, If it means the Mets win this year.
Steve
That's a tradeoff I'd take every time, Steve.
Let's Go Mets!
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.
"would vote for Joe Wood before Bly, though both, from my perspective, are HOF material"
The points about relative short time pitched are well taken, and perhaps I am too kind to Wood. I still feel if I had to choose only one, I'd probably again take Smokey Joe ( not Wibur, though a good one ) over Bert. As I quote myself, BOTH are HOF material, in my distorted view at least.
I must still wonder about Bly's lack of all-star game recognition. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I am sincerely interested in comments/opinions on why this was the case. 22 seasons, some fine consecutive year peaks, yet only twice was he considered among the top 8 or 9 pitchers in his own league.
Possible reasons include, too many other pichers had unusually fine seasons any specific year, Bly always pitched much better in the second half of a year, the voters had a dislike for him, his particular team that year already had enough/too many selections, he really never was that awesome, his name was too hard to spell, whatever, While being chosen for all-star game is not any "proof" of a players quality, it would seem logical the best pitchers get selected more often than the average ones. Will HOF voters continue to overlook him in a manner similar to AS voters ??
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Comments
Blyleven's best five seasons total 1 326 innings pitched with a composite ERA+ of 150. So his best 1 326 innings has a better adjusted ERA than Wood's best 1 326 innings. And Blyleven went on to have another 12 full seasons where he was pitching a lot with an ERA lower than league average. That means his career was similar to doing everything Wood did, plus everything Fernando Valenzuela did
Do you really believe that because Blyleven had many years like 1972 he was merely very good that it takes away from the years like 1973 when he was truly great?
Smokey Joe Wook being able to turn himself into a good hitter after he was in too much pain to pitch should definitely be seen as a positive. But all that might do is put him ahead of Wilbur Wood (and even then I might not be so sure), not Blyleven
<< <i>Wood's adjusted ERA + is 146, fouth best in the entire history of MLB, it is for an entire full career, NOT merely his prime or peak seasons. >>
Jack, I think you're avoiding the point. Joe Wood only had prime seasons, then he stopped pitching at 25. Calling what he had a "full" career is silly. Mark Fidrych has a career ERA+ of 126, better than Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, and just a single point behind Tom Seaver; shall we consider putting him the HOF, too? John Hiller pitched 15 seasons and had an ERA+ better than Gibson, Koufax and Ford - and pitched almost as many innings as Wood; is he a HOFer? If Brandon Webb quits baseball today, does he get to go straight to the HOF? He's got the 8th highest ERA+ EVER!
Ignoring innings pitched is ignoring half of the equation. Eddie Gaedel was not a HOFer despite his 1.000 OBP, Mark Fidrych does not deserve to be in the same sentence as Bob Feller, and Joe Wood is further from HOF qualifications than Rick Reuschel. Truth be told, I'd be a lot more inclined to put the aforementioned John Hiller in the HOF than Joe Wood.
ummm, the writers do not choose the gold gloves, the managers and coaches do.
A misconception is that writers vote for Gold Gloves. They do not. Managers and coaches do. And they cannot vote for players on their own team.
Steve
Edit: But thanks for catching that, you get a gold star!
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.
Steve
Steve
That's a tradeoff I'd take every time, Steve.
Let's Go Mets!
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.
The points about relative short time pitched are well taken, and perhaps I am too kind to Wood. I still feel if I had to choose only one, I'd probably again take Smokey Joe ( not Wibur, though a good one ) over Bert. As I quote myself, BOTH are HOF material, in my distorted view at least.
I must still wonder about Bly's lack of all-star game recognition. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I am sincerely interested in comments/opinions on why this was the case. 22 seasons, some fine consecutive year peaks, yet only twice was he considered among the top 8 or 9 pitchers in his own league.
Possible reasons include,
too many other pichers had unusually fine seasons any specific year, Bly always pitched much better in the second half of a year, the voters had a dislike for him, his particular team that year already had enough/too many selections, he really never was that awesome, his name was too hard to spell, whatever,
While being chosen for all-star game is not any "proof" of a players quality, it would seem logical the best pitchers get selected more often than the average ones. Will HOF voters continue to overlook him in a manner similar to AS voters ??