jrdolan - I think everyone on your list will eventually get in with the exception of maybe Lee Smith. Minnie Minoso will get in as a hitter in six decades
If you don't mind a slight hijacking of the thread, how about a different take: Should "specialists" such as DH's and relievers, be given equal consideration as full time position players and pitchers? This year's induction is interesting on that point, because before Eck, Rollie Fingers was the only reliever in the HOF (at least Eck had some good years as a starter). While Molitor put up many great years as a starter, he certainly got to where he is stat-wise by his years as a DH.
The issue of relievers would encompass such great ones as Suter, Gossage, etc... and the issue of DH's would also include players such as Harold Baines.
There has certainly been a bias against these guys when you look at the voting, and I'm not quite certain I disagree with it. A guy like Ripken, etc... who plays day in day out has a much greater impact on his team's fortunes over the years than a part-timer. Since I hate the DH, I would personally never vote for some any player who was principally a DH'er not matter what their stats. Yes, that's unfair, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
I thought about Richie Allen, who is in a class of players that would include Colavito, Frank Howard, and Boog Powell. These are all great players - and even dominant ones for a time - and I'm sympathetic to them. They are all tremendously popular regional players (except Allen, who was a nomad because he was poison in the clubhouse) but I'm not quite convinced they punch through that special barrier that elevates them to HOF status.
My two cents.
Steve
PS - I agree that a thread about players that ought not be in the HOF would be a long and interesting one.
I have to disagree with the concept of relievers and DH's not being given equal consideration for the hall of fame. First of all, it is a part of the game so it has to be considered. I don't htink we'll ever see a large amount of these type of players enshrined, but some of them are absolute no-doubt-about-it hall of famers. You could never convince me that Paul Molitor was not dominant as a DH. Go back and look at the 1993 season, while the Blue Jays were a great team, Molitor carried them at many times. Eckersley was as dominant as a player can be for a time.
I don't believe guys like Harold Baines or Lee Smith are hall of famers. I don't recall ever feeling like they were controlling the game. Now, Edgar Martinez, while I don't believe he'll make the hall, had a 5 or 6 year stretch when he was one of the very best players in the game, whether he played in the field or not.
Mariano Rivera will be a first ballot hall of famer, his dominance has been unparalled as a closer. I believe that Sutter should be in the hall of fame because he literally changed the game with his split fingerd fastball. I also think Gossage belongs, but I'm not sure of other relievers that should be there. As for DH's can you think of another, other than Molitor, that should be in the HOF? I can't off the top of my head. I think that great players dominate no matter what position they play, they just find a way. I also think that the assumption of a DH or reliver being a "part time" player is overstated. A starter pitches every 5th day, a great closer will pitch 3-5 times a week, who's more part time? A DH takes his 4 or 5 AB's a game and has a huge part in it's outcome. To me a utility infielder or professional pinch hitter (Manny Mota) are part time players, not guys that have an impact on the teams day to day.
Abe
Collecting anything and everything relating to Roger Staubach
I think relievers should be allowed to be in - but they need to be clearly dominant for a number of years. Especially given the limited roles that they play. The people that might get lost are people like Gossage, unfortunately, who was an awesome reliever - but was a very different type of reliver than your 3-out specialists that are used today. If they are consisently saving dozens upon dozens of games for their team - their role is very much as important as a staff ace, at least the way I look at it.
DHs are a different animal, though. I think it is a good place to finish a career, with the extra stats there helping you make it into the Hall - but I can't believe too many arguments for a DH in the Hall if they spent the bulk of their career their and weren't one of the top two or three offensive forces in the entire AL.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
I think most, if not all, of the names fall into the same category. Very, very good players, but marginal HOF choices. Would any of the players listed be top-of-the-line HOFs (with the exception of Joe Jackson and, perhaps, Pete Rose)? Definitely not. Are there players in the HOF that are comparable? Of course. But, to me, it doesn't make any sense to add 15-20 players to the bottom of the HOF. I think the guys listed are, at best, 50/50 - half the people would agree, half would not. That ain't enough.
Dale Murphy. When you compare stats from his era, he was HOF caliber. His stats are as good or better than say, Gary Carter or Kirby Puckett. Multiple All-Stars, Multiple Gold Gloves, and back to back MVP. He played before the juice ball era. In his day he was the best all around center fielder.
1) Bert Blyleven - Nope. Waaaaay too many non-winning seasons to be in. "But he pitched for lousy teams" is always the response to that. Not true. Go back and do the research. Being a .500 pitcher on a .500 team doesn't make you a HOF'er.
2) Dale Murphy - Too short of a peak. I love the guy and feel he was the best player in the game from 1982-84. But he faded too fast to be a HOF'er.
3) Harold Baines - No way. Not even close.
4) Lee Smith - See Harold Baines.
5) Jack Morris - I used to say yes to Jack, but have changed my mind. He's a no.
6) Alan Trammell - Yep, he gets in. He was a tremendous shortstop and put up really good numbers. Had the MVP stolen from him in 1987.
7) Mark Bellanger - No way. Guys with .228 career batting averages don't get in the HOF without buying a ticket.
8) Riggs Stephenson - Terrific numbers, but inflated by the era. If you check the numbers on baseballreference.com, he's not even close, even with the .336 avg.
9) Jim Rice - Nope. Numbers inflated by Fenway.
10) Andre Dawson - Nope.
11) Ryne Sandberg - Yep. 1st ballot. Best 2B of his era. By a long way.
I was never big on Lee Smith as he was like all other Cubs relievers, he made it closer than necessary. And I never really thought of him being in the Hall until I looked at his stats page.
He is the all-time career leader in saves, led the league in saves 4 times, was second 4 times, is the all-time career leader in games finished, was in the top 10 of the Cy Young voting 4 times and was a 7 time all-star.
Im not sure what more you would have to do as a reliever. I always perferred Bruce Sutter, but his injuries cost him some longevity stats.
If the veterans did not elect anyone last year, they will never elect Minoso for his publicity stunts of playing in six decades.
Tabe- Ryne Sandberg will be 2nd ballot at best as he did not make it last year.
Goose simply because he was the most intimidating reliever in the modern era. The game was played differently in the 70s and early 80s than it is now. IMO, if Eckersley got in, both Goose and Sutter should be in.
He still has a strong chance of being elected, but Andre Dawson would be a glaring omission from the HOF.
Through the end of the 2003 season, he ranked in the top 30 all time in the following major offensive categories:
games played (29th, with 2627) at bats (24th, with 9927) total bases (24th, with 4787) HR (29th, with 438) RBI (28th, with 1591) extra base hits (21st, with 1039)
He was also 43rd in hits (2774) and 39th in doubles (503).
His power-speed number ranks him 6th all time.
He was also an outstanding defensive player, with 8 Gold Glove Awards.
Excluding players not yet eligible for the HOF (active or retired less than 5 years ago), Dawson is the only player in the top 40 in RBI not yet in the HOF.
Excluding players not yet eligible for the HOF (active, retired less than 5 years ago, or Pete Rose), Dawson is the only player in the top 34 in extra base hits not yet in the HOF.
Dawson has the most hits of any eligible player not yet in the HOF.
The two most statistically similar players to him are Billy Williams and Tony Perez. Al Kaline is 4th most similar.
For a player to be the best non-elected eligible player in 3 separate major categories strongly suggests that he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
If Reese is in, Hodges should be a sure bet! Newcombe was dominant pitcher in the early 50's- if you make the judgment that short term greatness is as important as longterm numbers, take a look at his stats over a 5 year period on the mound!- interrupted by service in the war no less.
In the ealy 80s, Murphy was the equivalent to McGwire- he was the power hitter of that era and deserves to be in
<< <i>I was never big on Lee Smith as he was like all other Cubs relievers, he made it closer than necessary. And I never really thought of him being in the Hall until I looked at his stats page. >>
He had an ERA under 3.00 only 6 times in his 18-year career. That's thoroughly mediocre for a closer. In any era.
<< <i>Tabe- Ryne Sandberg will be 2nd ballot at best as he did not make it last year. >>
Tabe - by that standard, Alan Trammell should not be a HOFer.
Trammell had more than 21 HR in a season only once - that was in the juiced ball season of 1987, when he hit 4 more HR than Wade Boggs. [32, by the way, is an unusual number for a benchmark. If the benchmark were 30, which is a much more commonly used standard, Dawson would have accomplished it 3 times.]
1987 was also the only year that Trammell had 100 RBI in a season, more than 175 hits in a season, or more than 270 total bases in a season. In fact, there was only one other year where Trammell had more than 75 RBI in a season.
Maybe statistics don't fully measure the impact of a middle infielder. Well, comparing them against their contemporaries at the position, Trammell had 4 Gold Gloves and 6 All-Star appearances. Dawson had 8 of each.
Trammell was in the top 10 in hits once. Dawson was in the top 10 in hits 6 times, leading the league once (with under 200) and having 3 other appearances in the top 5. RBI - Dawson was in the top 10 8 times, with 4 of those being with less than 100 RBI
Trammell's 1987 season was the only time he was in the top 6 in the MVP voting. Dawson had 2 2nd place finishes (against Schmidt and Murphy) in addition to his win.
The most similar player to Trammell is Barry Larkin. The second most similar player to him is Jay Bell!
Dawson was even a far better base stealer than Trammell - both had the same number of times caught stealing, but Dawson had 78 more steals.
Trammell will probably get into the HOF. The shortstop position has a lot of really weak HOF members, and in comparison to the Phil Rizzutos of the world, he looks very good.
But if Dawson doesn't belong, then people like Billy Williams, Al Kaline, et al. were mistakes too.
In my humble opinion most of the players in this thread do not deserve to be in the hall of fame. It is too watered down already. I thought it was for the great players not just the good ones.
Collecting vintage material, currently working on 1962 topps football set.
I agree that the HOF is too watered down with players like Don Drysdale, Hal Newhouser, Bobby Doerr, Nellie Fox, Phil Rizzuto, Johnny Evers, Ray Dandridge and so many others. On the other hand I feel bad for guys like Tommy John (288 wins) and Bert Blyleven (287 wins) when I see players like Jesse Haines (210 wins) and Drysdale (209 wins) already enshrined.
There are so many players in the Hall now who should not be there, by my quick perusal about 30. But, if I were one of the borderline candidates today, I would really be wondering why I am not good enough. And all of the players menioned in this thread could rightly think like that.
I hate the argument that states, "He's the best player not in the Hall." Using this logic, we'll all be going to see Rob Wilfong's enshrinement in 2025.
Finally, my HOF criteria has already been stated in this thread: If you have to make a case, then he probably isn't HOF material. And I'll add one more nebulous way I use to determine a HOF player. Say the names of the greats like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Seaver... and then ask yourself if the player you're considering belongs in that class. That's what the Hall of Fame should be, not the Hall of Very Good or even the Hall of Excellent, but the Hall of the Elite.
Using that method, Rob Wilfong comes up just a little short.
Player 1 G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB 2456 8680 1074 2472 483 47 248 1389 21 33 855 694 .285 .348 .437 3793
8 Time All-Star, 1 World Series Apperance (Losing Team), 0 Gold Gloves
Player 2 G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB 2499 8756 1276 2356 421 47 376 1330 128 58 849 1386 .269 .341 .457 3999
11 Time All-Star, 1 World Series Appearance (Losing Team), 1 Gold Glove
Player 3 G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB 2296 7971 1025 2092 371 31 324 1225 39 42 848 997 .262 .335 .439 3497
11 Time All-Star, 1 World Series Appearance (Winning Team), 3 Gold Gloves
Note that Player 1 has a higher lifetime batting average and on-base percentage than both Player 2 and Player 3, and that his slugging percentage is only slighly lower than Player 3. Also note that all three players played in approximately the same number of games with fairly similar career totals.
The hints are as follows:
All three players were catchers who played during approximately the same seasons. Each played in one and only one World Series. Player 2 and Player 3 were elected to the Hall of Fame. Player 1 could not even garner the minimum amount of votes (5 percent) to stay on the ballot.
Answer below:
Player 1 is Ted Simmons Player 2 is Carlton Fisk Player 3 is Gary Carter
Mainly collecting 1956-1980 Topps Football, 1960-1963 Fleer Football, 1964-1967 Philadelphia Football, 1957-1980 Topps Hockey, 1968-1980 O-Pee-Chee Hockey, and 1976 Topps Basketball. Looking for PSA 9 NQ (or higher) in 1972-1980, and PSA 8 NQ or higher for pre-1972.
<< <i>Finally, my HOF criteria has already been stated in this thread: If you have to make a case, then he probably isn't HOF material. And I'll add one more nebulous way I use to determine a HOF player. Say the names of the greats like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Seaver... and then ask yourself if the player you're considering belongs in that class. That's what the Hall of Fame should be, not the Hall of Very Good or even the Hall of Excellent, but the Hall of the Elite. >>
I agree completely, but one of the players mentioned many times in this thread, and only one of these players IMHO, DOES meet that very high standard. He is 5th on the all-time strikeout list, 13th in innnings pitched, 9th in shutouts and 25th in games won. So, unless you want the bar raised so high that only pitchers as good as Mathewson, Johnson and Seaver get in, this guy, Bert Blyleven, should have been a slam dunk. He's not in, of course, because his won-lost percentage was not very high. It was pointed out that he was a .500 pitcher on .500 teams.
To the degree that that is true (and that statement understates his W/L a little bit), I don't think that's the end of the argument. I am sure many of you recall 1987, when Nolan Ryan led the league in ERA and K's - it was in fact one of the best seasons of his career with a "quality start" in 100% of his appearances - and his W/L was 8 - 16. Yes, 8 wins and 16 losses for the league leader in ERA (2.76 vs. a league average of 3.92).
In the end, a pitcher is not responsible for winning or losing, his team is; a pitcher is responsible for how many people he puts on base and how many of them score. Blyleven SHOULD have won many more games than he did, based on his stats and his teams. But, like Ryan in 1987 only not to that degree, he didn't. Doesn't make him any less great a pitcher. [For example, in 1977 with the Rangers, Blyleven was 14-12 on a team that was 94-68, while Doyle Alexander was 17-11, Gaylord Perry was 15-12, Dock Ellis was 10-6 and Nelson Briles was 6-4. Of the 5 pitchers with the most starts, Blyleven had the worst W/L and, you guessed it, the best ERA, the most strikeouts and the lowest H+BB per inning. You are of course free to argue that the W/L record is somehow his fault, but I can't even imagine what the argument would be.]
If you want to, check out his records at baseball-reference.com: of the 10 most similar pitchers to him, 8 are in the HOF (for Dawson, the comparable number is 5), and the two who are not (Tommy John and Jim Kaat) may very well be some day (none of the other 5 for Dawson ever will be). He was in the top 10 in ERA a total of 10 times, strikeouts 15 times, innings pitched 11 times, and on and on.
For his career, his ERA was below the league ERA by a whopping 0.59 - better than Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Robin Roberts, Phil Niekro and Steve Carlton, and much better than Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton and Early Wynn (those are all 8 of the HOF pitchers Blyleven is most comparable to). And yes, I believe that Bert Blyleven was a better pitcher than most, maybe even all, of those pitchers.
(I realize I have now made a case when the whole point was that HOF players don't need to have a case made for them - but I am amazed every year when he doesn't get in and do not understand why a case HAS to be made for him)
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
WOW - That ptper sounds like a very intelligent person. I agree with him except for Rob Wilfong. He deserves to be in the HOF. It has been said that at one time, he was the best person to draft in a fantasy league.
Hi WP
ebay seller name milbroco email bcmiller7@comcast.net
I would limit it to three. . . - Gossage. . .the game was different in the 70s and your closer was expected to go as many as three innings. Noone better during the era. - Sandberg. . .dominant player at his position in his era. Looked at from another way, if you're going to put Mazeroski in as a fielding specialist, how can you keep out someone who was probably his equal with the glove and among the best-hitting 2nd basemen ever? - Santo. . .was anyone in the 60s his equal at 3B other than Brooks? Ken Boyer maybe, but I can't think of anyone else.
I used to believe Blyleven should be in, but not so much any more. Because if you put Blyleven in, you have to put John and Kaat in as well. I'm not convinced that any of the three were dominant. Very good for a long time, but not dominant.
Murphy, Dawson and Rice are close for me, because they were the dominant player in the game for a 3-4 year stretch of their careers. . .but I think they needed another year or two of very good years as opposed to some of the downright mediocre years they had.
For me, numbers don't matter so much as they relate to HOF. For me, I want to see an extended period of dominance. That sways my opinion a lot more than numbers do.
<< <i>To the degree that that is true (and that statement understates his W/L a little bit), I don't think that's the end of the argument. I am sure many of you recall 1987, when Nolan Ryan led the league in ERA and K's - it was in fact one of the best seasons of his career with a "quality start" in 100% of his appearances - and his W/L was 8 - 16. Yes, 8 wins and 16 losses for the league leader in ERA (2.76 vs. a league average of 3.92).
In the end, a pitcher is not responsible for winning or losing, his team is; a pitcher is responsible for how many people he puts on base and how many of them score. Blyleven SHOULD have won many more games than he did, based on his stats and his teams. But, like Ryan in 1987 only not to that degree, he didn't. Doesn't make him any less great a pitcher. >>
We are all, of course, entitled to our own opinions. But my thought is this. Although any pitcher may have a generally unlucky year in terms of sporting a bad W/L record despite posting a good ERA, I nonetheless believe that over the course of a career, this should even itself out - especially with pitchers like Ryan and Blyleven who pitched for exceptionally long times. That being said, my conclusion comes to something like this: If the pitcher in question did not pitch better than the team's overall performance, he could not have been that good, that dominant, or perhaps even the #1 Starter. If Blyleven, for example, pitched for teams that were exactly 810-810 over a decade, and his record was 100-100, than he is no better than the team overall. And .500 is nothing to shout home about. Dominant is taking a bad team and winning a whole lot of games. Steve Carlton 1972 dominant. Yes, he was probably a little lucky that year, but he nonetheless posted a .730 winning percentage on a team that had a .397 winning percentage. That is true dominance, grit, perseverance, etc.
Same year, Twins - Blyleven was 17-17 for a 77-77 team. Next year he was 20-17 for an 81-81 team. 1974 he was 17-71 for an 82-80 team. 1971 he was 16-15 for a 74-86 team. The team records don't change much using the Pythagorean method, either....
Now, I'm not going to go through and analyze every year. He was an excellent pitcher - but, looking at any of the above, was he really dominant? Yes, he was their ace. Yes, he was a great pitcher. He pitched a huge number of complete games, and was always there for the team. I really admire him as a pitcher. But I don't think he is a "sure thing" HOFer. He had some really good years during the 1980s. And I might personally give him the nod for the HOF - but I have no qualms seeing why many still do not.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Hi Nick, Kaline is not in the same categoty as Billy Willams or Trammell. Kaline had 3000 hits, multiple gold gloves and was a dominant right fielder for the late 1950's and most of the 1960's. If he had played in New York, he would have been a God. Jim
Collecting all graded Alan Trammell graded cards as well as graded 1984 Topps, Donruss, and Fleer Detroit Tigers
During his career, Bert Blyleven had *8* seasons (out of 22) without a winning record (3 that were .500 exactly, 5 that were under .500). Of the other 14 seasons, he was 1 game over .500 *4* times. And only 2 games over .500 in another. So 13 of his 22 seasons he was 2 games over .500 or less. Is that [REALLY the type of guy who should be in the HOF?
As for Jim Kaat and Tommy John, they have big numbers simply because they lasted forever. Kaat had 3 20-win seasons in a 25-year career and won 217 games in his other 23 years - an average of not even 10 per year. Yeah, he won a bunch of Gold Gloves. Whoopee, he's a pitcher. As for John, same deal. 3 20-win seasons, averaged less than 10 per year the rest of his career. If you were to name the top 10 pitchers of the 60s & 70s, how many people would name either of these guys? How about top 20? How long would it take before they got mentioned?
Like the earlier poster said, run some names off your tongue: Mathewson. Koufax. Johnson. Grove. Alexander. Seaver. Spahn. Kaat. Which name doesn't belong? Does anybody think Blyleven, Kaat & John are even close to that class? Come on.
<< <i>Like the earlier poster said, run some names off your tongue: Mathewson. Koufax. Johnson. Grove. Alexander. Seaver. Spahn. Kaat. Which name doesn't belong? Does anybody think Blyleven, Kaat & John are even close to that class? >>
I agree - the HOF is for GREAT players NOT good players. There are too many marginal HOFers in there already.
However, the other direction of this thread, the "ineligable" players like Rose totally deserve to be in the HOF - I just doubt it'll happen in his lifetime thanks to that SOB Selig.
<< <i>That being said, my conclusion comes to something like this: If the pitcher in question did not pitch better than the team's overall performance, he could not have been that good, that dominant, or perhaps even the #1 Starter. If Blyleven, for example, pitched for teams that were exactly 810-810 over a decade, and his record was 100-100, than he is no better than the team overall. And .500 is nothing to shout home about. Dominant is taking a bad team and winning a whole lot of games. Steve Carlton 1972 dominant. Yes, he was probably a little lucky that year, but he nonetheless posted a .730 winning percentage on a team that had a .397 winning percentage. That is true dominance, grit, perseverance, etc. >>
Obviously, I am in the minority else Blyleven would already be in the Hall. And I will not argue that Blyleven ever approached the dominance of Carlton in '72. I will also be the first to agree that the HOF has way too many people in it and that the bar should be higher, but if the bar is Carlton in 1972, or anywhere near that, then we only have 5 to 10 pitchers who qualify - and Carlton himself is not one of them if that level of dominance is required for more than one year. If the bar is, say, one of the top few pitchers in the league over the length of a 15+ year career, then he's in, and Sutton, Niekro, and Perry (and many, many more) are out.
Borrowing from a prior post, I think if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees (or the Orioles, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves, Cardinals, ....) he would be a god, with 320+ wins, and would have skated into the HOF on the first ballot.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Borrowing from a prior post, I think if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees (or the Orioles, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves, Cardinals, ....) he would be a god, with 320+ wins, and would have skated into the HOF on the first ballot. >>
Not necessarily. For example: the 1970 Minnesota Twins were 98-64. Blyeven was only 10-9 for that team. The 1979 Pirates won 98 games and the World Series. Blyleven was only 12-5. The 1987 Twins won the World Series. Blyleven was 15-12. The 1988 Twins won 91 games. Blyleven was 10-17 with a 5.43 ERA.
That's just a few more extreme examples. Even when Blyleven was on good teams like the Twins or outstanding teams like the Pirates, he wasn't a big winner.
Is Blyleven better than some of the guys in the HOF? Yep. No question. Still doesn't mean he's good enough in my eyes.
<<Not necessarily. For example: the 1970 Minnesota Twins were 98-64. Blyeven was only 10-9 for that team. The 1979 Pirates won 98 games and the World Series. Blyleven was only 12-5. The 1987 Twins won the World Series. Blyleven was 15-12. The 1988 Twins won 91 games. Blyleven was 10-17 with a 5.43 ERA. >>
Let's see. Blyleven turned 19 on April 6, 1970. So, as a 19-year-old rookie he goes 10-9 with an ERA of 3.18 in a hitter's park, against a league average of 3.72. I see a fine pitcher learning the ropes, perhaps a little erratic from time to time, suffering from indifferent run support.
In 1979, the Pirates lead the NL in runs scored. Except, they scored like the '79 Padres (68-93) when Blyleven was on the mound. 12-5 for a 68-93 run team would be impressive. Of course, the only reason Blyleven was 12-5 was because the Pirates scored like the 1939 Yankees when he left the game. Check the boxscores, it's really bizzarre. In any event, he didn't win more, because the Pirates stunk when he pitched. He didn't lose more, because they played like the best team ever after he left the game. Oh yeah, Blyleven made 12 starts that year against future Hall of Famers. Frankly, 1979 was not one of his better years.
In 1987, the Twins won the World Series, but the Twins were 85-77 (.525). Blyleven's winning percentage at 15-12 was .555. He was decidedly better than his World Series winning teammates.
In 1988, Blyleven, in his 19th major league season at age 37, was terrible and earned a 10-17 record. Of course, two years later he was 17-5 with a 2.73 ERA for a third-place Angels team.
Aside from picking and choosing years to support an argument, there simply is too much noise in won-loss records to diffrentiate a pitcher with 289 wins from a pitcher, say with 310 or 315. The stat is too much team dependent to be that reliable.
Case in point: I think the most damning year for Blyleven is 1974. That year, the Twins went 82-80 and Blyleven, despite finishing 4th in the AL in ERA at 2.66, was 17-17 in 37 starts. The Twins scored 4.16 runs per game that year. Blyleven received exactly 4.16 runs per game in run support. Why wasn't Blyleven better than 17-17. It's because of run distribution. While his run support averaged out, the Twins' offense in his starts was extremely inefficient. In only 13 of his starts did Blyleven actually receive more than 3 runs of support while he was pitching. In those 13 starts, the Twins outscored their opponents 93-28. Blyleven went 12-0 with one no decision (he left after 9 with the scored tied 4-4 on opening day). In those 13 games, Blyleven received 8.07 runs of support, while he was giving up 2.43 runs a game. In the remaining 25 starts, in which Blyleven went 5-17, the Twins gave him 1.88 runs of support, while he gave up 3.60 runs a game.
Pythagoras would have expected a pitcher to have gone 11-1 in the 13 games the Twins scored more than 4 runs. Pythagoras would have expected a pitcher to have gone 5-17 in the games in which the Twins scored less than 4 runs. Thus, Blyleven actually beat Pythagoras by one game. However, if you use the average run support, then Pythagoras would have expected Blyleven to go 23-11. Yet, to blame Blyleven for only going 17-17 is to misplace the blame. The fault is squarely on the Twins. Thus, again, wins and losses do not tell the whole story.
I'm not saying Blyleven is a Grade A Hall of Famer, but he is clearly a Grade B-B+. And, if Blyleven is the standard for the Hall, then a lot of guys are wanting.
Jim Rice- He was the most feared hitter in baseball for a 5 year period. Unfortunately hitters from that era will have stats that compare unfavorably to today's hitters. He hit the ball so hard that it is thought the Green Monster actually hurt him and took away more homers than it gave him. 1978 was an unbelievable year for him. Many forget the year he had as a rookie in 1975 before an injury robbed him of a World Series appearance. He played for a lot of poor teams in the 1980s and in 1986 when they finally reached the Series he was on the downside and did not have that breakthrough performance. If you ask pitchers who they least liked to face in late 70s, early 80s Schmidt and Rice would probably be 1-2 with Brett a close third.
Comments
The issue of relievers would encompass such great ones as Suter, Gossage, etc... and the issue of DH's would also include players such as Harold Baines.
There has certainly been a bias against these guys when you look at the voting, and I'm not quite certain I disagree with it. A guy like Ripken, etc... who plays day in day out has a much greater impact on his team's fortunes over the years than a part-timer. Since I hate the DH, I would personally never vote for some any player who was principally a DH'er not matter what their stats. Yes, that's unfair, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
I thought about Richie Allen, who is in a class of players that would include Colavito, Frank Howard, and Boog Powell. These are all great players - and even dominant ones for a time - and I'm sympathetic to them. They are all tremendously popular regional players (except Allen, who was a nomad because he was poison in the clubhouse) but I'm not quite convinced they punch through that special barrier that elevates them to HOF status.
My two cents.
Steve
PS - I agree that a thread about players that ought not be in the HOF would be a long and interesting one.
I don't believe guys like Harold Baines or Lee Smith are hall of famers. I don't recall ever feeling like they were controlling the game. Now, Edgar Martinez, while I don't believe he'll make the hall, had a 5 or 6 year stretch when he was one of the very best players in the game, whether he played in the field or not.
Mariano Rivera will be a first ballot hall of famer, his dominance has been unparalled as a closer. I believe that Sutter should be in the hall of fame because he literally changed the game with his split fingerd fastball. I also think Gossage belongs, but I'm not sure of other relievers that should be there. As for DH's can you think of another, other than Molitor, that should be in the HOF? I can't off the top of my head. I think that great players dominate no matter what position they play, they just find a way. I also think that the assumption of a DH or reliver being a "part time" player is overstated. A starter pitches every 5th day, a great closer will pitch 3-5 times a week, who's more part time? A DH takes his 4 or 5 AB's a game and has a huge part in it's outcome. To me a utility infielder or professional pinch hitter (Manny Mota) are part time players, not guys that have an impact on the teams day to day.
Abe
Hoyt Wilhelm was a reliever, too.
I think relievers should be allowed to be in - but they need to be clearly dominant for a number of years. Especially given the limited roles that they play. The people that might get lost are people like Gossage, unfortunately, who was an awesome reliever - but was a very different type of reliver than your 3-out specialists that are used today. If they are consisently saving dozens upon dozens of games for their team - their role is very much as important as a staff ace, at least the way I look at it.
DHs are a different animal, though. I think it is a good place to finish a career, with the extra stats there helping you make it into the Hall - but I can't believe too many arguments for a DH in the Hall if they spent the bulk of their career their and weren't one of the top two or three offensive forces in the entire AL.
Forgot about ole' Hoyt. We should all be so lucky to be able to compete at that level into our 50's!
Steve
1) Bert Blyleven - Nope. Waaaaay too many non-winning seasons to be in. "But he pitched for lousy teams" is always the response to that. Not true. Go back and do the research. Being a .500 pitcher on a .500 team doesn't make you a HOF'er.
2) Dale Murphy - Too short of a peak. I love the guy and feel he was the best player in the game from 1982-84. But he faded too fast to be a HOF'er.
3) Harold Baines - No way. Not even close.
4) Lee Smith - See Harold Baines.
5) Jack Morris - I used to say yes to Jack, but have changed my mind. He's a no.
6) Alan Trammell - Yep, he gets in. He was a tremendous shortstop and put up really good numbers. Had the MVP stolen from him in 1987.
7) Mark Bellanger - No way. Guys with .228 career batting averages don't get in the HOF without buying a ticket.
8) Riggs Stephenson - Terrific numbers, but inflated by the era. If you check the numbers on baseballreference.com, he's not even close, even with the .336 avg.
9) Jim Rice - Nope. Numbers inflated by Fenway.
10) Andre Dawson - Nope.
11) Ryne Sandberg - Yep. 1st ballot. Best 2B of his era. By a long way.
That's my take anyway
Tabe
www.tabe.nu
He is the all-time career leader in saves, led the league in saves 4 times, was second 4 times, is the all-time career leader in games finished, was in the top 10 of the Cy Young voting 4 times and was a 7 time all-star.
Im not sure what more you would have to do as a reliever. I always perferred Bruce Sutter, but his injuries cost him some longevity stats.
If the veterans did not elect anyone last year, they will never elect Minoso for his publicity stunts of playing in six decades.
Tabe- Ryne Sandberg will be 2nd ballot at best as he did not make it last year.
Through the end of the 2003 season, he ranked in the top 30 all time in the following major offensive categories:
games played (29th, with 2627)
at bats (24th, with 9927)
total bases (24th, with 4787)
HR (29th, with 438)
RBI (28th, with 1591)
extra base hits (21st, with 1039)
He was also 43rd in hits (2774) and 39th in doubles (503).
His power-speed number ranks him 6th all time.
He was also an outstanding defensive player, with 8 Gold Glove Awards.
Excluding players not yet eligible for the HOF (active or retired less than 5 years ago), Dawson is the only player in the top 40 in RBI not yet in the HOF.
Excluding players not yet eligible for the HOF (active, retired less than 5 years ago, or Pete Rose), Dawson is the only player in the top 34 in extra base hits not yet in the HOF.
Dawson has the most hits of any eligible player not yet in the HOF.
The two most statistically similar players to him are Billy Williams and Tony Perez. Al Kaline is 4th most similar.
For a player to be the best non-elected eligible player in 3 separate major categories strongly suggests that he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Dale Murphy
Don Newcombe
Gossage
If Reese is in, Hodges should be a sure bet!
Newcombe was dominant pitcher in the early 50's- if you make the judgment that short term greatness is as important as longterm numbers, take a look at his stats over a 5 year period on the mound!- interrupted by service in the war no less.
In the ealy 80s, Murphy was the equivalent to McGwire- he was the power hitter of that era and deserves to be in
<< <i>I was never big on Lee Smith as he was like all other Cubs relievers, he made it closer than necessary. And I never really thought of him being in the Hall until I looked at his stats page. >>
He had an ERA under 3.00 only 6 times in his 18-year career. That's thoroughly mediocre for a closer. In any era.
<< <i>Tabe- Ryne Sandberg will be 2nd ballot at best as he did not make it last year. >>
Blech. I knew that!
Tabe
www.tabe.nu
1) had only one season of more than 32 HR and that was the juiced-ball year of 1987, when he had 49. You know, the year *Wade Boggs* had 24 HRs.
2) Never had 200 hits in a season.
3) Drove in 100 runs only 4 times.
Etc, etc.
I see Andre Dawson falling into that "very good for a long time" category. I just don't think he reaches the level of a HOF-er.
As someone once said to me "If you have to make a case for a guy, he doesn't belong." I tend to agree with that sentiment.
Tabe
Trammell had more than 21 HR in a season only once - that was in the juiced ball season of 1987, when he hit 4 more HR than Wade Boggs. [32, by the way, is an unusual number for a benchmark. If the benchmark were 30, which is a much more commonly used standard, Dawson would have accomplished it 3 times.]
1987 was also the only year that Trammell had 100 RBI in a season, more than 175 hits in a season, or more than 270 total bases in a season. In fact, there was only one other year where Trammell had more than 75 RBI in a season.
Maybe statistics don't fully measure the impact of a middle infielder. Well, comparing them against their contemporaries at the position, Trammell had 4 Gold Gloves and 6 All-Star appearances. Dawson had 8 of each.
Trammell was in the top 10 in hits once. Dawson was in the top 10 in hits 6 times, leading the league once (with under 200) and having 3 other appearances in the top 5. RBI - Dawson was in the top 10 8 times, with 4 of those being with less than 100 RBI
Trammell's 1987 season was the only time he was in the top 6 in the MVP voting. Dawson had 2 2nd place finishes (against Schmidt and Murphy) in addition to his win.
The most similar player to Trammell is Barry Larkin. The second most similar player to him is Jay Bell!
Dawson was even a far better base stealer than Trammell - both had the same number of times caught stealing, but Dawson had 78 more steals.
Trammell will probably get into the HOF. The shortstop position has a lot of really weak HOF members, and in comparison to the Phil Rizzutos of the world, he looks very good.
But if Dawson doesn't belong, then people like Billy Williams, Al Kaline, et al. were mistakes too.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
There are so many players in the Hall now who should not be there, by my quick perusal about 30. But, if I were one of the borderline candidates today, I would really be wondering why I am not good enough. And all of the players menioned in this thread could rightly think like that.
I hate the argument that states, "He's the best player not in the Hall." Using this logic, we'll all be going to see Rob Wilfong's enshrinement in 2025.
Finally, my HOF criteria has already been stated in this thread: If you have to make a case, then he probably isn't HOF material. And I'll add one more nebulous way I use to determine a HOF player. Say the names of the greats like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Seaver... and then ask yourself if the player you're considering belongs in that class. That's what the Hall of Fame should be, not the Hall of Very Good or even the Hall of Excellent, but the Hall of the Elite.
Using that method, Rob Wilfong comes up just a little short.
Tony Oliva Career Offensive Totals
Years G AB H BA Runs 2B 3B HR RBI SO BB SB CS
15 1676 6301 1917 0.304 870 329 48 220 947 645 448 86 55
Kirby Puckett Career Offensive Totals
Years G AB H BA Runs 2B 3B HR RBI SO BB SB CS
12 1783 7244 2304 0.318 1071 414 57 207 1085 965 450 134 76
Player 1
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB
2456 8680 1074 2472 483 47 248 1389 21 33 855 694 .285 .348 .437 3793
8 Time All-Star, 1 World Series Apperance (Losing Team), 0 Gold Gloves
Player 2
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB
2499 8756 1276 2356 421 47 376 1330 128 58 849 1386 .269 .341 .457 3999
11 Time All-Star, 1 World Series Appearance (Losing Team), 1 Gold Glove
Player 3
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB
2296 7971 1025 2092 371 31 324 1225 39 42 848 997 .262 .335 .439 3497
11 Time All-Star, 1 World Series Appearance (Winning Team), 3 Gold Gloves
Note that Player 1 has a higher lifetime batting average and on-base percentage than both Player 2 and Player 3, and that his slugging percentage is only slighly lower than Player 3. Also note that all three players played in approximately the same number of games with fairly similar career totals.
The hints are as follows:
All three players were catchers who played during approximately the same seasons. Each played in one and only one World Series. Player 2 and Player 3 were elected to the Hall of Fame. Player 1 could not even garner the minimum amount of votes (5 percent) to stay on the ballot.
Answer below:
Player 1 is Ted Simmons
Player 2 is Carlton Fisk
Player 3 is Gary Carter
<< <i>Finally, my HOF criteria has already been stated in this thread: If you have to make a case, then he probably isn't HOF material. And I'll add one more nebulous way I use to determine a HOF player. Say the names of the greats like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Seaver... and then ask yourself if the player you're considering belongs in that class. That's what the Hall of Fame should be, not the Hall of Very Good or even the Hall of Excellent, but the Hall of the Elite. >>
I agree completely, but one of the players mentioned many times in this thread, and only one of these players IMHO, DOES meet that very high standard. He is 5th on the all-time strikeout list, 13th in innnings pitched, 9th in shutouts and 25th in games won. So, unless you want the bar raised so high that only pitchers as good as Mathewson, Johnson and Seaver get in, this guy, Bert Blyleven, should have been a slam dunk. He's not in, of course, because his won-lost percentage was not very high. It was pointed out that he was a .500 pitcher on .500 teams.
To the degree that that is true (and that statement understates his W/L a little bit), I don't think that's the end of the argument. I am sure many of you recall 1987, when Nolan Ryan led the league in ERA and K's - it was in fact one of the best seasons of his career with a "quality start" in 100% of his appearances - and his W/L was 8 - 16. Yes, 8 wins and 16 losses for the league leader in ERA (2.76 vs. a league average of 3.92).
In the end, a pitcher is not responsible for winning or losing, his team is; a pitcher is responsible for how many people he puts on base and how many of them score. Blyleven SHOULD have won many more games than he did, based on his stats and his teams. But, like Ryan in 1987 only not to that degree, he didn't. Doesn't make him any less great a pitcher. [For example, in 1977 with the Rangers, Blyleven was 14-12 on a team that was 94-68, while Doyle Alexander was 17-11, Gaylord Perry was 15-12, Dock Ellis was 10-6 and Nelson Briles was 6-4. Of the 5 pitchers with the most starts, Blyleven had the worst W/L and, you guessed it, the best ERA, the most strikeouts and the lowest H+BB per inning. You are of course free to argue that the W/L record is somehow his fault, but I can't even imagine what the argument would be.]
If you want to, check out his records at baseball-reference.com: of the 10 most similar pitchers to him, 8 are in the HOF (for Dawson, the comparable number is 5), and the two who are not (Tommy John and Jim Kaat) may very well be some day (none of the other 5 for Dawson ever will be). He was in the top 10 in ERA a total of 10 times, strikeouts 15 times, innings pitched 11 times, and on and on.
For his career, his ERA was below the league ERA by a whopping 0.59 - better than Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Robin Roberts, Phil Niekro and Steve Carlton, and much better than Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton and Early Wynn (those are all 8 of the HOF pitchers Blyleven is most comparable to). And yes, I believe that Bert Blyleven was a better pitcher than most, maybe even all, of those pitchers.
(I realize I have now made a case when the whole point was that HOF players don't need to have a case made for them - but I am amazed every year when he doesn't get in and do not understand why a case HAS to be made for him)
Hi WP
email bcmiller7@comcast.net
- Gossage. . .the game was different in the 70s and your closer was expected to go as many as three innings. Noone better during the era.
- Sandberg. . .dominant player at his position in his era. Looked at from another way, if you're going to put Mazeroski in as a fielding specialist, how can you keep out someone who was probably his equal with the glove and among the best-hitting 2nd basemen ever?
- Santo. . .was anyone in the 60s his equal at 3B other than Brooks? Ken Boyer maybe, but I can't think of anyone else.
I used to believe Blyleven should be in, but not so much any more. Because if you put Blyleven in, you have to put John and Kaat in as well. I'm not convinced that any of the three were dominant. Very good for a long time, but not dominant.
Murphy, Dawson and Rice are close for me, because they were the dominant player in the game for a 3-4 year stretch of their careers. . .but I think they needed another year or two of very good years as opposed to some of the downright mediocre years they had.
For me, numbers don't matter so much as they relate to HOF. For me, I want to see an extended period of dominance. That sways my opinion a lot more than numbers do.
Mike
<< <i>To the degree that that is true (and that statement understates his W/L a little bit), I don't think that's the end of the argument. I am sure many of you recall 1987, when Nolan Ryan led the league in ERA and K's - it was in fact one of the best seasons of his career with a "quality start" in 100% of his appearances - and his W/L was 8 - 16. Yes, 8 wins and 16 losses for the league leader in ERA (2.76 vs. a league average of 3.92).
In the end, a pitcher is not responsible for winning or losing, his team is; a pitcher is responsible for how many people he puts on base and how many of them score. Blyleven SHOULD have won many more games than he did, based on his stats and his teams. But, like Ryan in 1987 only not to that degree, he didn't. Doesn't make him any less great a pitcher. >>
We are all, of course, entitled to our own opinions. But my thought is this. Although any pitcher may have a generally unlucky year in terms of sporting a bad W/L record despite posting a good ERA, I nonetheless believe that over the course of a career, this should even itself out - especially with pitchers like Ryan and Blyleven who pitched for exceptionally long times. That being said, my conclusion comes to something like this: If the pitcher in question did not pitch better than the team's overall performance, he could not have been that good, that dominant, or perhaps even the #1 Starter. If Blyleven, for example, pitched for teams that were exactly 810-810 over a decade, and his record was 100-100, than he is no better than the team overall. And .500 is nothing to shout home about. Dominant is taking a bad team and winning a whole lot of games. Steve Carlton 1972 dominant. Yes, he was probably a little lucky that year, but he nonetheless posted a .730 winning percentage on a team that had a .397 winning percentage. That is true dominance, grit, perseverance, etc.
Same year, Twins - Blyleven was 17-17 for a 77-77 team. Next year he was 20-17 for an 81-81 team. 1974 he was 17-71 for an 82-80 team. 1971 he was 16-15 for a 74-86 team. The team records don't change much using the Pythagorean method, either....
Now, I'm not going to go through and analyze every year. He was an excellent pitcher - but, looking at any of the above, was he really dominant? Yes, he was their ace. Yes, he was a great pitcher. He pitched a huge number of complete games, and was always there for the team. I really admire him as a pitcher. But I don't think he is a "sure thing" HOFer. He had some really good years during the 1980s. And I might personally give him the nod for the HOF - but I have no qualms seeing why many still do not.
Kaline is not in the same categoty as Billy Willams or Trammell. Kaline had 3000 hits, multiple gold gloves and was a dominant right fielder for the late 1950's and most of the 1960's. If he had played in New York, he would have been a God.
Jim
As for Jim Kaat and Tommy John, they have big numbers simply because they lasted forever. Kaat had 3 20-win seasons in a 25-year career and won 217 games in his other 23 years - an average of not even 10 per year. Yeah, he won a bunch of Gold Gloves. Whoopee, he's a pitcher. As for John, same deal. 3 20-win seasons, averaged less than 10 per year the rest of his career. If you were to name the top 10 pitchers of the 60s & 70s, how many people would name either of these guys? How about top 20? How long would it take before they got mentioned?
Like the earlier poster said, run some names off your tongue: Mathewson. Koufax. Johnson. Grove. Alexander. Seaver. Spahn. Kaat. Which name doesn't belong? Does anybody think Blyleven, Kaat & John are even close to that class? Come on.
Tabe
<< <i>Like the earlier poster said, run some names off your tongue: Mathewson. Koufax. Johnson. Grove. Alexander. Seaver. Spahn. Kaat. Which name doesn't belong? Does anybody think Blyleven, Kaat & John are even close to that class? >>
I agree - the HOF is for GREAT players NOT good players. There are too many marginal HOFers in there already.
However, the other direction of this thread, the "ineligable" players like Rose totally deserve to be in the HOF - I just doubt it'll happen in his lifetime thanks to that SOB Selig.
Brian
<< <i>That being said, my conclusion comes to something like this: If the pitcher in question did not pitch better than the team's overall performance, he could not have been that good, that dominant, or perhaps even the #1 Starter. If Blyleven, for example, pitched for teams that were exactly 810-810 over a decade, and his record was 100-100, than he is no better than the team overall. And .500 is nothing to shout home about. Dominant is taking a bad team and winning a whole lot of games. Steve Carlton 1972 dominant. Yes, he was probably a little lucky that year, but he nonetheless posted a .730 winning percentage on a team that had a .397 winning percentage. That is true dominance, grit, perseverance, etc. >>
Obviously, I am in the minority else Blyleven would already be in the Hall. And I will not argue that Blyleven ever approached the dominance of Carlton in '72. I will also be the first to agree that the HOF has way too many people in it and that the bar should be higher, but if the bar is Carlton in 1972, or anywhere near that, then we only have 5 to 10 pitchers who qualify - and Carlton himself is not one of them if that level of dominance is required for more than one year. If the bar is, say, one of the top few pitchers in the league over the length of a 15+ year career, then he's in, and Sutton, Niekro, and Perry (and many, many more) are out.
Borrowing from a prior post, I think if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees (or the Orioles, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves, Cardinals, ....) he would be a god, with 320+ wins, and would have skated into the HOF on the first ballot.
<< <i>Borrowing from a prior post, I think if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees (or the Orioles, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves, Cardinals, ....) he would be a god, with 320+ wins, and would have skated into the HOF on the first ballot. >>
Not necessarily. For example: the 1970 Minnesota Twins were 98-64. Blyeven was only 10-9 for that team. The 1979 Pirates won 98 games and the World Series. Blyleven was only 12-5. The 1987 Twins won the World Series. Blyleven was 15-12. The 1988 Twins won 91 games. Blyleven was 10-17 with a 5.43 ERA.
That's just a few more extreme examples. Even when Blyleven was on good teams like the Twins or outstanding teams like the Pirates, he wasn't a big winner.
Is Blyleven better than some of the guys in the HOF? Yep. No question. Still doesn't mean he's good enough in my eyes.
Tabe
Let's see. Blyleven turned 19 on April 6, 1970. So, as a 19-year-old rookie he goes 10-9 with an ERA of 3.18 in a hitter's park, against a league average of 3.72. I see a fine pitcher learning the ropes, perhaps a little erratic from time to time, suffering from indifferent run support.
In 1979, the Pirates lead the NL in runs scored. Except, they scored like the '79 Padres (68-93) when Blyleven was on the mound. 12-5 for a 68-93 run team would be impressive. Of course, the only reason Blyleven was 12-5 was because the Pirates scored like the 1939 Yankees when he left the game. Check the boxscores, it's really bizzarre. In any event, he didn't win more, because the Pirates stunk when he pitched. He didn't lose more, because they played like the best team ever after he left the game. Oh yeah, Blyleven made 12 starts that year against future Hall of Famers. Frankly, 1979 was not one of his better years.
In 1987, the Twins won the World Series, but the Twins were 85-77 (.525). Blyleven's winning percentage at 15-12 was .555. He was decidedly better than his World Series winning teammates.
In 1988, Blyleven, in his 19th major league season at age 37, was terrible and earned a 10-17 record. Of course, two years later he was 17-5 with a 2.73 ERA for a third-place Angels team.
Aside from picking and choosing years to support an argument, there simply is too much noise in won-loss records to diffrentiate a pitcher with 289 wins from a pitcher, say with 310 or 315. The stat is too much team dependent to be that reliable.
Case in point: I think the most damning year for Blyleven is 1974. That year, the Twins went 82-80 and Blyleven, despite finishing 4th in the AL in ERA at 2.66, was 17-17 in 37 starts. The Twins scored 4.16 runs per game that year. Blyleven received exactly 4.16 runs per game in run support. Why wasn't Blyleven better than 17-17. It's because of run distribution. While his run support averaged out, the Twins' offense in his starts was extremely inefficient. In only 13 of his starts did Blyleven actually receive more than 3 runs of support while he was pitching. In those 13 starts, the Twins outscored their opponents 93-28. Blyleven went 12-0 with one no decision (he left after 9 with the scored tied 4-4 on opening day). In those 13 games, Blyleven received 8.07 runs of support, while he was giving up 2.43 runs a game. In the remaining 25 starts, in which Blyleven went 5-17, the Twins gave him 1.88 runs of support, while he gave up 3.60 runs a game.
Pythagoras would have expected a pitcher to have gone 11-1 in the 13 games the Twins scored more than 4 runs. Pythagoras would have expected a pitcher to have gone 5-17 in the games in which the Twins scored less than 4 runs. Thus, Blyleven actually beat Pythagoras by one game. However, if you use the average run support, then Pythagoras would have expected Blyleven to go 23-11. Yet, to blame Blyleven for only going 17-17 is to misplace the blame. The fault is squarely on the Twins. Thus, again, wins and losses do not tell the whole story.
I'm not saying Blyleven is a Grade A Hall of Famer, but he is clearly a Grade B-B+. And, if Blyleven is the standard for the Hall, then a lot of guys are wanting.
Thanks
Randy