Options
Bert Blyleven - HOF?
onegaucho
Posts: 650 ✭
Just heard him on our local radio station (1090 AM). One of the first times I've heard him talk on the radio out here. Seems like a great guy. The hosts asked him about his chances of getting into the Hall someday since he's been bypassed lately. It was staggering to hear that he has 287 wins and 242 complete games. That's ridiculous in this day and age.
People would say "he doesn't have 300 wins"... Out of the 65 some odd pitchers in the Hall, I think only 20 or so have 300.
Thoughts?
And along the lines of this board, how do his cards fare? Anyone know off the top of their head what his toughest card to get is?
People would say "he doesn't have 300 wins"... Out of the 65 some odd pitchers in the Hall, I think only 20 or so have 300.
Thoughts?
And along the lines of this board, how do his cards fare? Anyone know off the top of their head what his toughest card to get is?
0
Comments
Blyleven - 287-250 @ 3.31 and 242 complete games
John - 288-231 @ 3.34
John has one more win and his winning percentage is better - and done in 260 fewer innings than Blyleven. That's a full season less, folks.
Blyleven won 20 games once (1973). John won 20 three times and over a four year period (77-80) averaged 20 wins a season.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
But will disagree with a lot of your reasons why.
Consider your arguement about winning percentage. Both Blyleven and John have better winning percentages than Nolan Ryan.
And face it man, when you pitch 5000 innings in a career you're going to walk a guy or two. But let's look at walks a second -
Blyleven - 1332 (2.4 BB/9 innings)
John - 1259 (2.4 BB/9)
Ryan - 2795 - Yep. . .he had more than twice as many walks as either Blyleven or John. To the tune of 4.6 walks per 9 innings.
Noone even questions Ryan's status as a HOFer, but was he REALLY that much better than either John or Blyleven??? Sure he had all the strikeouts, but Blyleven is #3 all time. Sure he won 300 games, but he lost darned near 300 too. Ryan did have a period where for 5 out of 6 years (1972-77) he was a dominant pitcher in the AL (but only two 20-win seasons - the only ones of his career) . Is that really that much better than John winning an avg of 20 a year for 4 years?
These are the wonderful arguements that make the HOF so interesting to me.
Mike
Blyleven was never DOMINANT, which I think is a prerequisite for the HOF (the way I understand it -- though it is not an explicit requirement). Blyleven was only on the AS team twice in 22 seasons. He never finished above third in Cy Young voting. He absolutely had a NUMBER of seasons where he was one of the top five pitchers in the League, however he was never the best one in any season. Though I do appreciate consistency, especially in the long run, I do not think Blyleven was ever so good as to make it into the Hallowed Halls of Cooperstown.
Long term, I would rather see deserving people not elected to the HOF than have (more) underserving players in the HOF.
Sutton is in because he hung around long enough to get 300 wins. If Blyleven could have 'hung on' a few more years to get the 300 wins, he would probably be in. Falling a few wins short of 300, will delay or ultimately deny him the hall of fame.
In terms of number of wins, probably the closest HOFer I can think of to the Blyleven's 288 wins is Fergie Jenkins who had 284 wins. Fergie is in the Hall of Fame (and deservedly so) - while Blyleven and John probably won't ever make it. Why do you suppose that is? I mean they finished with comparable numbers of wins - Fergie's 284 to Blyleven's 288. Their career ERAs are similar - Fergie @ 3.34 vs Blyleven's 3.31. I'll tell you what puts Fergie in the HOF and keeps Blyleven out. For a run of 9 years (1967-1975), Fergie Jenkins AVERAGED over 20 wins a season.
It's not that he didn't get to 300 wins that is keeping Blyleven out. It's the fact that he was never a dominant player at his position for an prolonged period. Even outside of Sutton's 300 wins, one could point to a 5 or 6 year period in his carrer where he was simply a dominant player at his position.
Mike
Sutton is an awesome commentator for the Braves and was a very good pitcher. Not so sure about him ever being dominant though.
But I don't think Guidry was dominant for long enough. . .I mean 1978 he was off the chart and followed it up with 18 and 17 win seasons which were solid. What troubles me is in 1983 he goes 21 & 9. . .then in 84 he's 10 & 11. . .then he's back to 22 & 6 in 1985. . .then in 86 he goes 9 & 12. In each case, he was right at 200 innings or more. I don't know of too many HOF-calibre pitchers who alternate a good year with a downright bad year like that.
Mike
Between 1972-76, he was clearly the second best pitcher in the AL (behind Palmer). However, that fact was effectively masked by his records. He was always going 17-17, 17-15, 20-17 etc.. However, I don't think it fair that we punish him because the Twins sucked. In fact among his contemporaries (who are in the HOF or merit mention), Blyleven's teams have the distinction of having the worst won-loss record with the notable exception of Tom Seaver (who was easily the greatest pitcher of his generation). His teams were decidedly worse than Ryans, and Ryan actually ended up with a worse winning percentage.
He then was an above-average pitcher for another 15 years.
And, unfortunately he is remembered for the HRs. However, that was a two year aberration. In 1986-87, he gave up 96 dingers. He only gave up a total of 336 in the other twenty years combined.
While I am no big fan of Total Baseball, it lists Blyleven in a dead heat with Fergie Jenkins as the 35th best pitchers in baseball history. I think that it is a fair assessment . His ERA for his career was 17% than the league average. Total Baseball rates him at 30.9 wins above the average pitcher. By comparison, Ryan was 11% better than league average and was 21.2 wins above average.
Bill James, who I am a big fan of, ranks Blyleven as the 19th best pitcher of all time, behind Seaver, Niekro, Perry and Carlton among his contemporaries and just ahead of Ryan, Sutton, Gibson, Palmer, John, Kaat, and Hunter.
And, Blyleven did not pitch in pitcher's parks as it has been alleged. Among the pitchers listed he had the misfortune of pitching in the most offensive friendly environments of all those pitchers, be it Metropolitan Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium, the Mistake by the Lake, or the HomerDome.
In any event, I think it a travesty that he hasn't been elected yet. But he, like John and probably Kaat, will eventually be elected and the Hall will not be a worse place for it.
(As an aside. I once tracked all of Blyleven's starts between 1977-79 to see why he didn't have a better winning record, despite playing for excellent offensive teams. For whatever reason, despite the excellent offense, during those years Blyleven actually received less run support than the average pitcher. But, that may have had to with the way his manager used him. In 1979 alone, he made 10 starts against pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame).
Thanks
Randy
I think Blyleven should be in the hall if for nothing else than his wicked curve ball. He had the best breaker I've ever seen. Nobody else has come close.
I have been wondering the exact same thing for many years. blyleven had, what many of his peers consider the BEST curveball in the majors. When he retired, he was third in career strikeouts (behind only Ryan and Carlton, and 61 more than Seaver).
He has 3 more wins than Ferguson Jenkins.
He finished with 60 career shutouts (Ryan and Seaver each had 61, Carlton had 55, Sutton had 58).
His career ERA is 3.31 (Ryan's is 3.19, Carlton's is 3.22, Jenkins' is 3.34 and Sutton's is 3.26)
He pitched 242 complete games, 35.3% of his starts (Seaver completed 35.7% of his starts, Ryan 28.7%, Carlton 35.8%, Palmer 40.5%, Jenkins 44.9% and Sutton 23.5%)
Oh by the way, he pitched 22 years, not 27 (Seaver pitched 20 years, Ryan 27, Carlton 24, Sutton 23, Palmer and Jenkins 19 each).
You can't penalize a player for being with mediocre or bad teams throughout his career. blyleven played mainly for the Twins, Indians, Angels and Pirates. The only time he really played for what you might call a good team was his 3-year stint with the Pirates, including the 1979 World Series. He also played in the 1987 World Series with the Twins. Both times he played in the World Series, his team won. He has a 2-1 W-L record in the World Series, and an overall 5-1 W-L record in the postseason. He started in 3 World Series games, 6 total in the postseason, and has a 2.47 postseason ERA (2.35 in the World Series).
I'm sorry, but I just do not understand how his record does not qualify him for the Hall of Fame! He has been robbed!
Steve
The difference in winning percentage between Ryan and Blyleven is neglible, IMHO. If Ryan had Blyleven's WP, he would've won about 329 games, 5 more than he actually did. If Blyleven had Ryan's, he would've won 282 games, 5 fewer. Five games over 22+ years is not a lot. If either had the WP of someone like Mike Mussina (.644) and the same number of decisions, Blyleven would be 346-191, Sutton 374-206, and Ryan 397-219 (!).
Sutton had some numbers that were a tiny notch better than Blyleven, but more importantly had a stretch of continued excellence from 1969-1976 where he reached a level every year that Blyleven only hit about every other year. Most Hall of Famers have a pattern of reaching a certain level of superior performance and maintaining it for 5-8 years, and backing it up with seasons on either end that are at least "good." Blyleven was never that consistent.
Leaving stats aside for a minute, given that HOF election is about more than any imaginary statistical threshhold, this is where Ryan leaves every modern pitcher behind. Ryan's halo effect from his Texas teenage fireballer origins, his singular performances and his record-breaking stats had him on target for Cooperstown before Reagan was elected. He probably locked up election in 1981 when he got his 5th no-hitter, halfway through his career. The fascination with the strikeout, like the homerun, is easy for the average casual fan or non-fan to understand and the media to convey, and so the "Fame" part of the Hall of Fame becomes more heavily weighted. Sutton played for strong Dodgers teams and reached the playoffs many times, though I doubt little leaguers anywhere outside LA ever idolized him, was an All-Star 4 times and top 5 in Cy Young voting 5 times. Blyleven, pitching for years in semi-obscurity for non-descript teams (which surely impacted his record), was an All-Star only twice, and placed in the Cy Young top five three tmes. Plus his historical performances few and very far between, not to mention the fact that he passed Walter Johnson only after Carlton (and Seaver?) did, so he got no such benefit. So comparing them stat-by-stat, and saying Ryan's in and therefore Sutton or Blyleven should be in, isn't really looking at the whole package. And even Ryan wasn't a unanimous selection, or even the highest vote getter (very close, though).
If Blyleven were elected, I'd have no problem with it. As I said, I supported him up to this year, but when I stopped looking at the totals and looked at the seasons, it didn't look like a blueprint for greatness. And in the Hall of Fame in my mind, greatness as I perceive it is required for election.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
Again, I respectfully disagree. For the period 1971-77 Blyleven was at least as consistent and at the same level as Sutton (I did not include 1969 and 1970 because Sutton was merely average those two seasons and Blyleven was still getting wet).
The key difference between Blyleven and Sutton in 1971-77 were the facts that Blyleven pitched for a mediocre team in an excellent hitting park while Sutton pitched for an excellent team in the NL's second best pitching park (behind the Astrodome).
In 1971, Blyleven was 16-15, 2.81 (126, which means 26% better than league average) for a 74-86 team. Sutton was 17-12, 2.54 (127) for a 89-73 team.
In 1972, Blyleven was 17-17, 2.73 (118) for a 77-77 team. Sutton was 19-9, 2.08 (160) for a 85-70 team (monster year for Sutton).
In 1973, Blyleven was 20-17, 2.52 (157) for a 81-81 team. Sutton was 18-10, 2.42 (142) for a 95-66 team.
In 1974, Blyleven was 17-17, 2.66 (141) for a 82-80 team. Sutton was 19-9, 3.23 (105) for a 102-60 team.
In 1975, Blyleven was 15-10, 2.76 (130) for 76-83 team. Sutton was 16-13, 2.87 (119) for a 88-74 team.
In 1976, splitting time with the Twins and Rangers, Blyleven was 13-16, 2.87 (125). Sutton was 21-10, 3.06 (111) for a 92-70 team.
In 1977, Blyleven was 14-12, 2.72 (150) for a 94-68 team. Sutton was 14-8, 3.18 (120) for a 98-64 team.
Thus, over the same period, Blyleven exceeded the league ERA by 25% or more every year but one. Sutton did so every year but 3. But for the teams they played for, the argument could be made that Blyleven was, year in and year out, between 1971 and 1977 more dominant than Sutton.
However, the one nagging question about Blyleven is, given the fact that he beat the league ERA by 25% every year, why did he basically post a win-loss record only slightly better than his teams? (He would have been expected to win another 5-6 games, in my estimation).
In any event, I am not arguing that Ryan is in and Sutton is in, so Blyleven should go in. I am arguing that Blyleven's performance was of such a caliber that only few major league pitchers have ever reached that level. And, that is what makes hima Hall of Famer. And, the fact that we are comparing Blyleven to Sutton and Ryan really on emphasizes that fact.
Thanks
Randy
By any measure, Blyleven should be in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Wolverton
Special to ESPN.com
Why isn't Bert Blyleven in the Hall of Fame?
It's not just that he hasn't been elected; he hasn't gotten close to being elected. The best level of support he's gotten from the BBWAA in his five years of eligibility has been 26 percent -- about a third of the number of votes he needs to get into Cooperstown. How can a pitcher with such impressive career numbers, not to mention the best curveball of his generation, be generating so little support?
It can't be because he wasn't good enough at preventing runs -- the entire job of a starting pitcher. The "classic" run prevention stats -- ERA and innings pitched -- make a decent Hall of Fame case for Blyleven. His career ERA of 3.31 is better than one-fifth of the Hall's starting pitcher inductees. He put up that ERA over 4,970 innings, better than four-fifths of the Hall's starters.
Of course, looking at raw ERA is doing Blyleven a big disservice, because it ignores the inflated run-scoring environment in which he pitched. The vast majority of his innings were thrown in the post-DH American League. Most of his home parks were hitter-friendly. And unlike many of the contemporaries to whom he is frequently compared -- Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Ferguson Jenkins, etc. -- Blyleven did not spend any of his career in the shutout-happy 1960s.
In order to compare Blyleven and other pitchers on a level playing field, accounting for the run-scoring environments in which they pitched, we'll use an estimate of Wins Above Replacement: How many wins the pitcher added to his teams beyond what a replacement-level pitcher would have done. Anyone who wants the details can find them in this Randy Johnson article, but the basic idea is pretty simple: Figure out how many runs the pitcher prevented over what a replacement-level pitcher would have allowed in the same number of innings, the same league, and the same park, and then convert the resulting number to wins to account for the changing value of runs over time.
Here are the top 10 non-Hall pitchers since 1900. Only Hall-eligible pitchers are considered, so we're excluding active pitchers, along with the blacklisted Eddie Cicotte.
Pitcher WAR
BERT BLYLEVEN 92
Billy Pierce 66
Tommy John 65
Luis Tiant 62
Tommy Bridges 61
Wilbur Cooper 59
Babe Adams 59
Rick Reuschel 58
Jerry Koosman 58
Dave Stieb 58
Blyleven isn't just the top pitcher outside the Hall by this measure of run prevention; he blows everyone else out of the water. He's often been lumped together with Tommy John in Hall discussions because the two have very similar raw numbers. But John pitched for better teams, and in pitcher-friendly Dodger and Yankee Stadiums. John was a fine pitcher who has a decent Hall of Fame case in his own right, but when it comes to preventing runs, Blyleven was in another league.
Since Blyleven towers above the other pitchers who've been excluded from the Hall, it's no surprise that he fits in better with the Cooperstown set. For example, here's Blyleven along with his Hall of Fame contemporaries:
Pitcher WAR
Tom Seaver 105
BERT BLYLEVEN 92
Gaylord Perry 89
Steve Carlton 85
Phil Niekro 84
Jim Palmer 83
Don Sutton 80
Nolan Ryan 79
Fergie Jenkins 79
Catfish Hunter 46
I don't claim this is the one definitive ranking of the 70's pitchers. Other analysts measure run prevention in slightly different ways, and they'll come up with slightly different lists. But all of them, at least all the ones I know of, show Blyleven right at home among Hall of Famers.
If Blyleven's career totals are Hall-worthy, perhaps it's a lack of big individual seasons that's keeping him out. It's true that he never had a season the caliber of, say, Steve Carlton's 1972, but the Hall would be practically empty if that were the standard. Blyleven did have more than his share of years in which he was one of the league's elite pitchers. He finished in the top five in ERA six times; of the 1970s pitchers in the list above, only Seaver and Palmer can claim as many or more top-five finishes. Blyleven generally put up his good ERAs in hitters' parks.
Did Blyleven wreck his Hall candidacy by melting down in the postseason? On the contrary, he was an outstanding October pitcher, putting up a 2.47 ERA in 47 1/3 postseason innings, and a 2.35 ERA in 23 World Series innings. His postseason performances played a big role in the "We Are Family" Pirates' championship in 1979 and the improbable Twins championship in 1987.
Maybe the explanation is Blyleven's career won/loss record -- 287-250, a .534 winning percentage. I hesitate to even give this much attention, because a pitcher's won/loss record is as much a reflection of his teammates' performance as it is his. Pitchers don't win games, teams do. Some work I did for a previous article suggested that Blyleven's won/loss record is the seventh unluckiest in major-league history, and that his "deserved" career record is around 312-225.
For the sake of argument, let's imagine that pitchers' career won/loss records are good measures of their performance. Is Blyleven's 287-250 bad enough to keep him out? Well, other than Blyleven, there are six pitchers since 1900 who had 250 to 300 wins and a winning percentage below .550. Five of those six are enshrined in Cooperstown, including the two with winning percentages worse than Blyleven's:
Pitcher W L Pct HOF?
Eppa Rixey 266 251 .515 Y
Ted Lyons 260 230 .531 Y
BERT BLYLEVEN 287 250 .534 N
Robin Roberts 286 245 .539 Y
Red Faber 254 213 .544 Y
Jim Kaat 283 237 .544 N
Red Ruffing 273 225 .548 Y
Bert Blyleven will be in the Hall of Fame someday. There is simply no precedent for keeping a player who produced this well and for this long out of Cooperstown forever. It's ridiculous to make him wait any longer. The complete lack of support for a player with such clear qualifications makes Bert Blyleven the Hall's greatest oversight.
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Now, the game was a lot different in the 70s for pitchers. The bullpen was not stocked with guys who got incentives for "holds", so he picked up losses (and wins) where today's pitchers would get NDs a lot of the time. They pitched 40 games a year instead of 32, so they could lose 15 and still win 20. ERA vs. league is very telling stat, probably his best argument for election aside from the empirical numbers, but it works against him for me. It's kind of the Jack Morris argument in reverse. Morris gets knocked for having such a high ERA, the highest of any HOFer if elected. Yet he had such a high ERA and he won anyway. Blyleven had such a low ERA and lost anyway. And it's not like he was playing for the '62 Mets every year.
I'd like to know what happened in 1979. Blyleven started 37 games for the team that would be World Champions, yet he ended up 12-5, by far his fewest decisions in a full year. His walks were up, and his ERA was up. I wonder if that was the beginning of the closer era, and Chuck Tanner started bringing in Kent Tekulve whenever the starter had 2 guys on in the 7th inning.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
Baseball-Reference.com states that his stats are most similar to: Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Tommy John, Robin Roberts, Tom Seaver, Jim Kaat, Early Wynn, Phil Niekro, Steve Carlton.
He won 2 World Series games in 1979 to beat the Orioles with a 2.77 ERA. He won 2 ALCS and 2 WS games in 1987 for the Twins. Him and Frank Viola were more responsible for that team winning the WS than any other players.
Yes, he has a .534 winning percentage in the regular season. I figured his team winning pct was .504 (using the 1976 Rangers record instead of Twins --- he split the season).
I'd like to see a comparison of other pitchers of his era and their winning pct vs. that of his team and how they performed in the playoffs.
That ESPN article makes an excellent point about him not pitching in the 60s era of higher mound and low ERAs and being in the post-DH American league for the vast majority of his career. How many other AL pitchers since 1970 are in the Hall? I can only think of:
Jim Palmer, Dennis Eckersly (mainly as a reliever), Catfish Hunter (also pitched a lot in 60s and for stellar teams). Add Roger Clemens to that list, and you're talking about him being one of the top 5 prominent AL pitchers in the last 35 years.
Erik
Helionaut,
That is the one nagging question about Blyleven's candidacy. Sure he posted great ERAs. Sure he played generally for mediocre and lousy teams. But, why didn't he win more? One would expect a pitcher with an ERA of 2.66 against a league ERA of 3.63 pitching for a 81-81 team to be better than 17-17. I have two theories: (1) He was given less than average run support (which was true of the period that I studied (1977-79); (2) He was all or nothing, i.e., he would fire a shutout one day and then give up 5 runs the next: His ERA would be 2.50, but he would be 1-1. That also jives with having a phenomenal curve ball, that might be difficult to throw or control (and depend on the umpire behind the plate as well). (this also seems to be true for the period I studied. Or, maybe it was a combination of the two?
And, while it took some looking to convince myself about Blyleven's Hall-worthiness, I still question why he didn't win more.
Thanks
Randy
In looking at Blyleven, 1979 was the year I focused on. My hypothesis was that Tanner brought in Tekulve and blew some opportunities for wins or losses. But that wasn't what I found. In 1979, Blyleven was either unhittable or he got hammered. And, despite the fact that the Pirates led the NL in runs scored, Blyleven received less than average run support (for example the Pirates scored more than 4 runs while he was pitching in 2 or 3 of this starts). However, they scored like crazy when he left the game (which is why he lost only 5 games). Given an average number of decisions, Blyleven should have been 15-12 in 1979. As you have noted, he was basically a slightly better than average pitcher in 1979. (He also made 8-10 starts against future HOFers. Tanner always matched him up against Carlton, for example).
If I find my complete study on Blyleven in 1979, I will post it later.
Thanks
Randy
In comparing him with other similar pitchers that are in the Hall, he does stack up decently. But he also stacks up decently with other players who are not in the Hall. There are no requirements for election other than service time and, apparently, not gambling. The amorphous quality of "greatness" also comes into play. Was he ever the best pitcher in his league? Between Palmer, Seaver, Hunter, Jenkins, Guidry, Ryan, Saberhagen, etc., probably not. So at no point was he the peak to which others aspired. Other arguments like "he's the only player with this stat not in, or the only player to do this thing and he 's not in" are not really arguments because they are open-ended.
But, you know in the end, 287 wins, a superb ERA vs. league, and finishing 3rd all-time in strikeouts does sound pretty good, and a career as a whole probably is what voters should look at. I've filp-flopped again and say put him in. Blyleven, John, Morris, and Kaat should all be in.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
Yet only 2 All Star games in a 22 year career. Gaylord Perry and Sutton had more appearances.
Only once did he lead the league in strikeouts. His lack of dominance in any one season is the main stumbling block.
It's a very close call, but his career numbers push him over the top. They are too compelling IMO.
Another item in Blyleven's defense...probably the main reason he didn't lead the league more often in strikeouts is that in the 70's, he was mostly in the american league, and Nolan Ryan and Frank Tanana were mowing batters down right-and-left (haha..no pun intended)
Steve