Bert Blyleven, put him in the Hall. ALRIGHT YOU IDIOT WRITERS, IT'S ON!

RonBurgundy · January 4, 2010 1:56AM

And if you disagree, I. WILL. FIGHT. YOU.

MBMiller25 · January 4, 2010 1:59AM

I think he goes in next year.

markj111 · January 4, 2010 2:11AM

I agree. Put Raines in as well.

jamesryanbell · January 4, 2010 2:18AM

He's got the stats. He should be in.

burke23 · January 4, 2010 2:29AM

you = preacher, me = choir

TomGshotput · January 4, 2010 2:37AM

Why would the Hall-of-Fame voters adhere to the consistent standards from the first 60 years, when they can just make up completely new and irrational ones in one decade?

burke23 · January 4, 2010 2:44AM

<< Why would the Hall-of-Fame voters adhere to the consistent standards from the first 60 years, when they can just make up completely new and irrational ones in one decade? >>

Please explain

baseballfan · January 4, 2010 3:01AM

the one site i saw had about 30% of the votes tallied and he was in with dawson and alomar. all 3 had over 75% of the vote

TomGshotput · January 4, 2010 3:02AM

<< Please explain >>

For the entire twentieth century the writers made perhaps three or four truly marginal selections. Since 2000 there has been Sutter, Gossage, Perez and Rice. If they're going to destroy the significance of the Hall-of-Fame, why not go all the way?

baseballfan · January 4, 2010 3:03AM

it was 36 full ballots counted

results so far

% Leaderboard after 36 Full Ballots…

83.3 - Alomar
83.3 - Dawson
80.6 - Blyleven
58.3 - Larkin
55.5 - Lee Smith
55.5 - J. Morris
47.2 - Edgar
38.9 - T. Raines
33.3 - McGwire
22.2 - Trammell

burke23 · January 4, 2010 3:12AM

<< 

<< Please explain >>

For the entire twentieth century the writers made perhaps three or four truly marginal selections. Since 2000 there has been Sutter, Gossage, Perez and Rice. If they're going to destroy the significance of the Hall-of-Fame, why not go all the way? >>

SO you really don't think Bert belongs? Any in depth review would show that he certainly does. And I would strongly argue against the 'three or four truly marginal selections' comment...think its a bit more than that. That being said, yes there has been some bad ones lately too. Gossage isn't one of them (if you argue any reliever should get in, he should). Sutter was not a good selection....Rice too.

TomGshotput · January 4, 2010 3:48AM

<< And I would strongly argue against the 'three or four truly marginal selections' comment...think its a bit more than that >>

Perhaps. But certainly no single decade comes anywhere close to such low quality selections as the four I listed above

According to previously consistent standards Blyleven was deserving; current standards are completely irrational, so hard to figure where anyone stands -- but you don't even need much depth in your analysis to see how much more he did than Gossage ... 4970 innings pitched compared to 1809, which means Blyleven gave up 344 fewer runs than an average pitcher would have, Gossage was only 193. Find it hard to believe there is any depth we could go into to make up that difference

clayshooter22 · January 4, 2010 3:58AM

You know why Bert think he's not in....the homerun record.

I've talked with him caualy and his impression is that the writters think that's a drawback...absurd.

burke23 · January 4, 2010 4:02AM

<< 

<< And I would strongly argue against the 'three or four truly marginal selections' comment...think its a bit more than that >>

Perhaps. But certainly no single decade comes anywhere close to such low quality selections as the four I listed above

According to previously consistent standards Blyleven was deserving; current standards are completely irrational, so hard to figure where anyone stands -- but you don't even need much depth in your analysis to see how much more he did than Gossage ... 4970 innings pitched compared to 1809, which means Blyleven gave up 344 fewer runs than an average pitcher would have, Gossage was only 193. Find it hard to believe there is any depth we could go into to make up that difference >>

Glad to see you feel Bert deserves it as well - but Gossage is debatable...that really comes down to relievers and if they are deserving. I think the number of relievers allowed in should be few and far between, and those that get in need to be spectacular. Goose qualifies if any non-Mo reliever does. Sutter in my opinion does not. I still am not sure the HOF voting was any worse this decade then before - nor is it any better. I'm pulling for you, Bert! Raines, Alomar, and Larkin too.

TomGshotput · January 4, 2010 4:21AM

<< I think the number of relievers allowed in should be few and far between, and those that get in need to be spectacular. Goose qualifies if any non-Mo reliever does >>

Wilhelm was better and deserving. As was Eckersly. Fingers was perhaps dead-even with Gossage (and easily the worst selection for the entire decade of the 90s with no one else even close to being sub-standard. . . ) With Rivera in another eight or nine years, that would certainly qualify as "few and far between." And if you agree that there are pitchers better than Gossage not in the Hall-of-Fame, by definition that has to make him at least questionable. And when the difference is so great it does leave him clearly below the standards

clayshooter22 · January 4, 2010 4:24AM

22 seasons....

3.31 era
692 games
242 complete games
60 complete game shutouts ......are you kidding me!!
4970 innings
3701 strikeouts
430 homeruns.....MLB record

In one or more years he's led the league in Games Started, Complete Games, Shutouts, Homeruns Allowed, Innings Pitched, Strikeouts, Batters Faced and WHIP. He's been a 20 game winner. He finished more than a third of the games he started; and of those he pitched a CG shutout about 25% of the time. A different era of baseball, granted, but a standout compared to his peers, no doubt.

jlbsquared · January 4, 2010 5:05AM

83.3 - Alomar
83.3 - Dawson
80.6 - Blyleven
58.3 - Larkin
55.5 - Lee Smith
55.5 - J. Morris
47.2 - Edgar
38.9 - T. Raines
33.3 - McGwire
22.2 - Trammell

Go Robby Alomar!!! I hear he's handing out spit shields and HIV tests if he gets elected.

rob71rgd98 · January 4, 2010 5:09AM

I agree there have been some questionable picks in recent years, but this is not new. Go back to some picks from the 40s and 50s and you will see many questionable HOF selections. Here are just a few:
1946- Frank Chance
1946- Joe Tinker
1946- Johnny Evers
Just because a famous poem included their names shouldn't mean they belong in the Hall
1948 -Herb Pennock
A decent but not HOF-caliber pitcher for the Murderer's Row Yankees. For any other team he would have not even come close to HOF consideration
1953- Bobby Wallace
1954- Rabbit Maranville
1955- Ray Schalk
1955- Ted Lyons

There are probably others but this is the ones I can come up with quickly from those years. There are plenty of other marginal HOF'ers from just about every decade.
The fact is the HOF has been diluted for some time.

But given the players that are in the Hall, Blyleven fits just fine and I think he belongs.

Rob

TomGshotput · January 4, 2010 8:07AM

Ted Lyons was a very good pitcher on even worse teams than Blyleven. By 1942, having discovered the knuckleball and pitching once per week he was still very good. He then spent three years in the Marines while he was still good, but at a time when American culture dictated men should exchange any career for military service. Maybe slightly behind Blyleven, but easily ahead of all other eligible pitchers not in the Hall-of-Fame

Seven of the other nine players were not elected by the writers. Seems like pretty good support the idea of a sudden, irrational drop in standards by the writers when the total number of marginal choices in the 40s and 50s combined was only half that of the most recent decade

epatmythes · January 4, 2010 8:30AM

Bert Blyleven for the Hall of Fame??? Seriously??? It's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall for Longevity, or the Hall of Okay!

The dude pitched 22 years and was only a two time all-star! 22 years and didn't crack the 300 win mark and only tallied a slightly better than .500 winning percentage... and actually lost as many or more games 8 of those 22 seasons.

In 22 years, he only once led the league in a major pitching statistical category. In 1985 he led the AL in strikeouts with 206... as he almost should have as a decent pitcher who also led the league that year in games started, innings pitched and batters faced. That's it... one key stat in 22 years. However, we was enough of a pitcher (in other years) to twice lead the AL in hit batters and home runs allowed!

In 22 years, he only showed up on Cy Young ballots 4 times... with his best finishes being twice receiving 3rd place consideration.

Lastly, how do you remove yourself from the game for five years... when everyone still remembers you and not get even 20% of the vote for your first three years on the ballot... and now, 10 years later start eclipsing the 60% mark and have people clamoring to get you into the Hall of Fame.

It's a joke... the dude was okay... perhaps even pretty good... but I'm sorry, Bert Blyleven is absolutely not a Hall of Famer!

You have to play in the MLB for 10 years to be considered... but just because you were fortunate enough to play 20+, and accumulate decent (albeit mediocre when averaged out) stat totals, doesn't meen you deserve enshrinement in Cooperstown.

BPorter26 · January 4, 2010 10:01AM

I agree Byleven's hall worthy. Now if Andre Dawson gets in were the heck is the love for Dave Parker. Dawson and Parker have similar numbers. No love for the Cobra.

hammered · January 4, 2010 10:24AM

My opinion is that he shouldn't be in.

The analysis by Epatythes was right on. He was a good pitcher, not an HOF pitcher.

The baseball HOF is becoming cheapened w/ the help of the Veteran's committee and these marginal selections. It's still the only HOF that matters in major sports, but that won't last long.

Lots of players shouldn't be in (ie, Mazeroski)

Any yet they still exclude Pete Rose. Amazing.

Estil · January 4, 2010 10:48AM

<< I think he goes in next year. >>

Why next year? What's wrong with this year?

Didn't someone on here say that Jim Kaat (who I think is second most deserving among eligible players despite his lack of name recognition) will become eligible for Veteran's Committee consideration in 2011?

Anyway, I think it's totally unfair that 3000 hits for a batter is an automatic first ballot bid (every eligible 3000 hits player since 1962 has gotten in on the first ballot; no joke, look it up) but yet 3000 K's for a pitcher (for which there's less than half as many) is apparently not. And Bert has 701 to spare! Add to that his 287 wins and especially his 60 shutouts (now a days I think a pitcher is lucky to get 10 for a career), and I think not only should he go in, but he's LONG overdue.

And on a related note, I hope 2010 is finally the year Ronnie Milsap goes in the Country Music Hall of Fame; sorry if that's going OT.

DonnieD · January 4, 2010 11:35AM

I really find it hard to believe that people can objectively look at the stats and not conclude that Blyleven belongs in the HOF. He is 5th all time in strikeouts, which as was previously mentioned is a "major" statistical category. He was 3rd in strikeouts at the time of his retirement. Imagine someone (not linked to steroids or gambling) retiring as 3rd all-time in one of the hitting triple crown categories and not getting into the HOF.

As far as wins, winning %, All-Star games, and CY votes, those are things that are trivial and shouldn't matter at all (though I know they do). They are really all related and in general don't tell you how good a pitcher is but rather how good his team is.

burke23 · January 4, 2010 11:42AM

<< My opinion is that he shouldn't be in.

The analysis by Epatythes was right on. He was a good pitcher, not an HOF pitcher.

The baseball HOF is becoming cheapened w/ the help of the Veteran's committee and these marginal selections. It's still the only HOF that matters in major sports, but that won't last long.

Lots of players shouldn't be in (ie, Mazeroski)

Any yet they still exclude Pete Rose. Amazing. >>

Really - Blyleven was ok, but Rose...the ultimate compiler - was great? I don't know about that. Rose had a whopping lifetime slugging percentage of.... .409. Career average of .303, and OBP of .375. Nice, but not special at all for a guy who played a lot of OF, 1b, and 3b. Blyleven, for his career, had an adjusted ERA almost 20% above league average...as a starter and for as money innings he pitched, that is amazing. Along with all the shutouts, K's, and wins, and other peripheral stats...he wouldn't be the best pitcher in the Hall, but he would not detract from it's "legacy" either...not like Jack Morris would or how others that are already enshrined do.

RonBurgundy · January 4, 2010 12:06PM

3701 K's, greatest curveball ever, and 287 wins, and we get parsing of the year to year stats? Ridonkulous.

The fact is, if he had worn pinstripes or Red Sox garb or Dodger blue, he would've been in years ago.

grote15 · January 4, 2010 12:12PM

Bert Blyleven absolutely belongs in the HOF. It's an injustice that he's not already in, especially when you consider that guys like Sutter and Gossage are already in, and it only further illustrates the ignorance of the writers and their fascination with wins and winning pct. Unfortunately, "wins" is probably the LEAST reliable stat for judging a pitcher's effectiveness as it is hugely affected by how good (or in Blyleven's case, mediocre or bad) the pitcher's team is. It's actually rather remarkable that Bert even got to 287 wins given the teams he played for! Other stats, though, are even more revealing: Blyleven's career ERA of 3.31 (most of which was spent in the AL with the DH) is less than one-tenth of a run worse than Steve Carlton's who pitched during the same era (mostly in the NL, where the pitcher provided an easy out every 9th batter), and his adjusted ERA+ of 118 is actually slightly better than Carlton's 115. Throw in his 60 career shutouts and 242 complete games and 3,700+ K's and you have a HOF resume without question. The argument that he should somehow be penalized because he had a long career makes no sense to me, since to last that long in the first place a pitcher has to pitch well enough to earn a spot in the rotation. Of course, the writers who vote on these things are the same geniuses who awarded Rafael Palmiero a gold glove at 1B when he was a DH and Joe Gordon the AL MVP when Ted Williams won the Triple Crown in 1942.

VintageCardLover · January 4, 2010 1:07PM

"He was a good pitcher, not an HOF pitcher.'

He is a better pitcher than quite a few Hall Of Famers, the numbers back him up.

hammered · January 4, 2010 1:21PM

<< Really - Blyleven was ok, but Rose...the ultimate compiler - was great? I don't know about that. Rose had a whopping lifetime slugging percentage of.... .409. Career average of .303, and OBP of .375. Nice, but not special at all for a guy who played a lot of OF, 1b, and 3b. Blyleven, for his career, had an adjusted ERA almost 20% above league average...as a starter and for as money innings he pitched, that is amazing. Along with all the shutouts, K's, and wins, and other peripheral stats...he wouldn't be the best pitcher in the Hall, but he would not detract from it's "legacy" either...not like Jack Morris would or how others that are already enshrined do. >>

Blyleven is borderline. Like Niekro, Jenkins, John, and maybe a guy like Glavine. Blyleven would not ruin the Hall's rep by himself, but his admission combined with all the other borderline picks recently, is not good for the baseball HOF. It's becoming more like the HOFs of the other sports. Just my opinion.

As far as Rose, anyone who sets a hits record is obviously a compiler. But he was also a 16-TIME All-Star, an MVP, ROY, and top 10 MVP several times. He was also considered one of the dominant hitters/baserunners of his era. Not only that, but he won. He was, in my view, the most important part of the Big Red Machine.

I'd have no problem with Blyleven if they also let Rose in.

TomGshotput · January 4, 2010 1:38PM

For the few who think he doesn't belong, do you at least agree he is the best eligible pitcher not in the Hall-of-Fame?

Do you also agree he is better than a good number of pitchers representing every era of Hall-of-Fame voting? Perhaps even far ahead of some like Hunter, Sutter, Lemon, Pennock (all selections by the writers, not Veteran's Committee)?

If he is the best eligible pitcher by such a wide margin not yet in and better than so many already in, that unquestionably meets the Hall-of-Fame standards. Looking at too few All-Star selections or pointing out that he only led the league in strikeouts once, but failing to mention he was in the top 10 13 times without letting us know who should be next in line is just being silly. It is understandable to want the Hall-of-Fame to maintain high standards. But since they started electing baseball players in the 30s the standards have never been so high as to exclude someone of Blyleven's success

trapperlad · January 4, 2010 2:10PM

Being a lifelong Twins fan, I've watched his career closely. Blyleven played on some very AVERAGE teams at best. Lets not forget he has TWO World Series rings. One with the Pirates and 1 with the Twins. I wouldn't consider either of these teams baseballs elite. His numbers deem him worthy of the HOF. Unfortunately, he had a bad relationship with some of the writers during his career that is still hurting him. It is really quite ironic because he is one of the Twins current TV announcers. Blyleven is funny, informative and often makes fun of himself and all of the home runs he gave up.

Estil · January 4, 2010 3:12PM

I didn't even think about his 242 complete games! Nowdays a pitcher is VERY lucky to get 2-3 in a season, which for even a 20 year career would add up to a mere 40-60.

All the more reason this had better be his year (seeing as how there's no real first ballot locks this year).

Tabe · January 4, 2010 3:15PM

I am on the fence with regard to Blyleven. All you guys saying "he's better than so-and-so who's in the HOF" automatically lose your argument. Why? Because that's like saying some guy was better than Phil Rizzuto, so they should be in the HOF. It's a nonsense argument.

For this post, I'll go with the "he doesn't belong" point of view.

<< Being a lifelong Twins fan, I've watched his career closely. Blyleven played on some very AVERAGE teams at best. Lets not forget he has TWO World Series rings. One with the Pirates and 1 with the Twins. >>

I hear this argument often - that Blyleven played for "average" (or worse) teams. And that's sort of true - until you dig a little deeper.

Year: Team (Bert)
1970: 98-64 (10-9)
1971: 74-86 (16-15)
1972: 77-77 (17-17)
1973: 81-81 (20-17)
1974: 82-80 (17-17)
1975: 76-83 (15-10)
1976: 85-77 (4-5) - Twins
1976: 76-86 (9-11) - Rangers
1977: 94-68 (14-12)
1978: 88-73 (14-10)
1979: 98-64 (12-5) - World Champs
1980: 83-79 (8-13)
1981: 52-51 (11-7)
1982: 78-84 (2-2)
1983: 70-92 (7-10)
1984: 75-87 (19-7)
1985: 60-102 (9-11) - Indians
1985: 77-85 (8-5) - Twins
1986: 71-91 (17-14)
1987: 85-77 (15-12) - World Champs
1988: 91-71 (10-17)
1989: 91-71 (17-5)
1990: 80-82 (8-7)
1991: 72-90 (8-12)

What this shows is that Blyleven put up really average win/loss marks even when pitching for excellent teams (1970, 1977, 1979, 1988). Other than 1984, he rarely ever significantly outperformed his fellow pitchers in terms of win/loss. If your other 3 or 4 starters are putting up the same kind of record as Blyleven, does that REALLY make him a HOFer? Only TWO 18-win seasons in 22 years? Only TWO All-Star trips? He basically had two seasons where he led the league in anything positive - one year leading in shutouts and ERA+ and another year leading in starts, IP, CG, SHO, and Ks. Other than that? Zip, unless you count 1986 when he led in innings while giving up 50 HRs (still a record).

Blyleven is given a lot of credit for ending his career with 3701K - never mind that he topped 200 only twice the last *16* years of his career.

There are a lot of reasons thrown out there why Blyleven isn't already in. Bert himself blames the HR record (a big negative, if you ask me, since he pitched a non-HR era), or his lousy teammates or his attitude. Well, I don't know why the voters have kept him out specifically but I can't think that throwing your teammates under the bus will get you in. The fact that Bert was so lightly regarded during his career - as evidenced by Cy Young and All-Star voting - shows that he didn't stand out among his peers when playing. If you don't stand out among peers, you're not a HOFer.

Tabe

grote15 · January 4, 2010 3:25PM

Wins and a pitcher's won-loss record captures the attention of the voters, but a pitcher's Won-loss record is a very poor indicator in any argument to illustrate a pitcher's effectiveness, as it is solely dependent on a team's ability to score to win. If your team averages 4 runs a game, you are obviously going to achieve more victories and a higher winning pct. than if your team averages 3 runs a game. The same concept gies for RBIs---a guy who has 200 RBI chances and knocks in 120 is no better than the guy who knocks in 90 in 130 chances.

Much better indicators are Blyleven's career ERA, his adjusted ERA+, complete games, shutouts and strikeouts--when you look at these stats (all of which are in the pitcher's complete control, for the most part), you get a better idea of how favorably he compred to the vast majority of his peers, even though he never got the recognition from the sportswriters that he deserved.

TheTalkingWalnut · January 5, 2010 1:06AM

I'm playing hooky from work right now and can't really spend the time to analyze the numbers that Tabe put up, but on first glance it seems to me that Bert had a winning season (more wins than losses) frequently when the team that he played on had a losing record.

How does this compare with other HOFers and other marginals like Morris, Glavine, etc? I'd be curious to find out.

And for the record? 3rd alltime Ks and 60 shutouts = IN

Brick · January 5, 2010 1:15AM

And for the record? 3rd alltime Ks and 60 shutouts = IN

All those complete games is also impressive.

theczar · January 5, 2010 1:15AM

I agree that Blyleven should have been in a long time ago. For those saying that Tony Perez was marginal I politely disagree. For those saying that the hall is simply not for longevity, then Nolan Ryan should never have made it.

TomGshotput · January 5, 2010 1:27AM

<< I am on the fence with regard to Blyleven. All you guys saying "he's better than so-and-so who's in the HOF" automatically lose your argument. Why? Because that's like saying some guy was better than Phil Rizzuto, so they should be in the HOF. It's a nonsense argument. >>

Rizzuto was put in by Veteran's Committee, far different standards than the writers every used. Though it is true that being better than some in the Hall-of-Fame is a somewhat trivial accomplishment, it is such a small part of the arguement supporting Blyleven. Tell us a pitcher better than Blyleven not in the Hall-of-Fame. Tell us one even close. When the difference between him and everyone else eligible is so great, how can he not be seen as deserving?

10001110101 · January 5, 2010 2:11AM

I cant see Ronnie Milsap going into the HoF, and frankly, neither could he.

TheThrill22 · January 5, 2010 2:38AM

He had 10 of his 22 seasons in which he was a .500 pitcher or below...enough said. Not Hall worthy.

clayshooter22 · January 5, 2010 3:05AM

<< He had 10 of his 22 seasons in which he was a .500 pitcher or below...enough said. Not Hall worthy. >>

Did you even look at the teams he played for?

He went 9-11 for a team that lost 102 games...ya, clearly he was the problem. At least bash him for the 3.26 era rather than his teammates having a historically awful season.

burke23 · January 5, 2010 3:20AM

<< He had 10 of his 22 seasons in which he was a .500 pitcher or below...enough said. Not Hall worthy. >>

Poorest...argument...ever.

TheThrill22 · January 5, 2010 3:38AM

Poorest argument ever? I suggest you re-read the post by Epatythes from the first page. His average season was 14-12, 183 K's, 65 walks. He pitched for 22 seasons, I would hope that he would rack up some numbers in that time. He was a good pitcher, no doubt, but not a Hall of Fame pitcher.

burke23 · January 5, 2010 3:52AM

<< Poorest argument ever? I suggest you re-read the post by Epatythes from the first page. His average season was 14-12, 183 K's, 65 walks. He pitched for 22 seasons, I would hope that he would rack up some numbers in that time. He was a good pitcher, no doubt, but not a Hall of Fame pitcher. >>

Well using something beyond wins is a start - but he put up an average season of all-star numbers. That's a bad thing? W/L record should NOT factor in. Example:

1977 Bert was 14-12 (.538 - oddly his 162 game average) on a team with a .580 winning percentage...his numbers:
234 IP, 2.72 ERA (151 ERA +) and 182 K's, 15 CG and 5 SHO
Doyle Alexander was 17-11 (.600!!!), 237 IP, 3.65 (113 ERA +) with 82 K's, 12 CG and 1 SHO.

So Bert had a much lower win percentage than his team and Doyle - who was clearly an inferior pitcher to Bert that year. Think bad luck was involved? Was he a negative contributor to his teams success based on his record versus the teams? I don't think so.

In 1974 Bert had was 17-17 (.500 winning percentage like his team). and the following numbers:
281 IP, 2.66 ERA (142 ERA+), 249 K's, 19 CG and 3 SHO
Joe Decker was 16-14 (.520) with a 3.29 ERA (114 ERA+). Who was better? Did Bert pitch like a .500 pitcher, or perhaps an AS and legit Cy candidate that year?

Call him a compiler if you will - but he was a compiler of well above average stats for over 20 years.

TheThrill22 · January 5, 2010 4:37AM

He was an all-star twice in his career and finished in the top 10 in Cy Young voting 4 times and won over 17 games in a season only twice. With his lack of all-star selections and his Cy Young voting results, there are others who feel that he wasn't "great" either.

bking · January 5, 2010 4:46AM

<< He was an all-star twice in his career and finished in the top 10 in Cy Young voting 4 times and won over 17 games in a season only twice. With his lack of all-star selections and his Cy Young voting results, there are others who feel that he wasn't "great" either. >>

For me, he has always seemed like a great pitcher during an era of VERY great pitchers. His only mistake was pitching during the years when Seaver, Marichal, Gibson, Palmer, Carlton, Ryan, etc. owned the stage.

markj111 · January 5, 2010 7:05AM

<< He was an all-star twice in his career and finished in the top 10 in Cy Young voting 4 times and won over 17 games in a season only twice. With his lack of all-star selections and his Cy Young voting results, there are others who feel that he wasn't "great" either. >>

IP H ER BB SO HR ERA ERA+
Blyleven 4970 4632 1830 1322 3701 430 3.31 118
Group Average 4974 4541 1800 1429 3263 434 3.26 115

The group consists of:

Don Sutton
Gaylord Perry
Fergie Jenkins
Robin Roberts
Tom Seaver
Early Wynn
Phil Niekro
Steve Carlton

Pretty good company.

What about shutouts:

I realize that the game has changed a lot since Blyleven's day. Still... did you know: That Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than:

• Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. Combined.
• Roger Clemens and Chris Carpenter. Combined.
• Greg Maddux, John Smoltz and Mark Buehrle. Combined.
• Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina and Brandon Webb. Combined.
• Orel Hershiser, Curt Schilling, Johan Santana and Bartolo Colon. Combined.
• Dave Stieb and Jack Morris. Combined.
• New York Yankees pitchers have had since 1988. Combined.
• The entire American League in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and... every year going back to 1992.

He lost 99 quality starts in his career (fifth most since 1954) and he had 79 quality start no-decisions (11th most). He lost 139 games when he pitched at least seven innings -- more than any pitcher since 1954. I'm just saying that there might be more than seems obvious at first glance.

fiveniner · January 5, 2010 7:59AM

Yes Blyleven belongs as well as the following
Lee Smith (The Bob Gibson of Relief pitchers)
Allan Trammel (He just did did not do summersalts as well as Ossie Smith.)
Tim Raines (who would have been the best if Henderson was not around)

TheThrill22 · January 5, 2010 9:02AM

Markj111...very good points. Like Uncle Bob told Bud in the movie "Urban Cowboy": "Bud, even a cowboy has to swalla his pride sometimes." While I would much rather have Seaver, Carlton, or Maddux pitch in a must win game, I see your points and they are quite impressive. Okay, let him in. If he doesn't get in, can his moustache get in?

Estil · January 5, 2010 10:41AM

<< I cant see Ronnie Milsap going into the HoF, and frankly, neither could he. >>

40 number one hits (third all time behind George Strait and Conway Twitty) as well as 1977 CMA Entertainer of the Year (country music's version of MVP) isn't good enough??? He's certainly much much much more worthy than Vince Gill (him getting in when he did was a total joke).

Tabe · January 5, 2010 10:46AM

<< Tell us a pitcher better than Blyleven not in the Hall-of-Fame. Tell us one even close. When the difference between him and everyone else eligible is so great, how can he not be seen as deserving? >>

Somebody's gotta be the best player not in the HOF. That somebody is Burt Blyleven. In fact, he's better than some (a lot?) of guys that are already in. That makes no difference.

Here's the thing with Blyleven - pretty much the entire case for him rests on the argument that he was a hard luck pitcher. For his ENTIRE career. As in every single season of his ENTIRE career. Does that REALLY make sense? Maybe, just maybe, Burt had something to do with that tough luck? What that would be, I don't know - other than maybe the TON of HRs he gave up. Maybe his teammates didn't like playing for him - he's shown since retiring a willingness to throw teammates under the bus, maybe he was the same back then? I don't really know.

Right now, I don't think there's any pitchers I'd put in that are currently eligible. Blyleven would be the only one if I *HAD* to put someone in. Like I said before, I'm on the fence about him. That said, he's CLEARLY behind this generation of not-yet-eligible greats - Pedro, Maddux, Randy, et al.

Tabe

Bert Blyleven, put him in the Hall. ALRIGHT YOU IDIOT WRITERS, IT'S ON!

Comments