Bert Blyleven

[ThatsMrFordToYou]

Simply put, what is it that keeps this man out of the HOF?

[Captain Cold Nose]

You can look through the various threads supporting Blyleven's candidacy. A few theories have been thrown out. He doesn't have a stellar W-L record, he never was considered the best pitcher or among the very best pitchers in baseball, he gave up too many home runs, or the writers took his practical jokes too personally. Take your pick.

It's not so much he hasn't gotten in yet, but his relative lack of support, that really bothers me.

[Cougar]

he never was considered the best pitcher or among the very best pitchers in baseball

I think this is the main thing. He was overshadowed during his long career by pitchers who were clearly better (Seaver, Palmer, Clemens, Carlton, Ryan), and often by pitchers of comparable quality who were more prominent for any of a number of reasons (Niekro, Perry, Catfish, Sutton). He never had that one really flashy season to hang his hat on (as many of those guys did). He played on several teams, in mostly relatively obscure media markets like Minnesota, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Texas. He only had two All-Star appearances (this is really something that should be devalued for pitchers, because selections are so contingent on availability to pitch, composition of the staff, etc.) His curveball wasn't as awe-striking as Ryan's fastball or Carlton's slider, nor as entertainingly quirky as Niekro's knuckler, nor as charmingly roguish as Perry and Sutton's, um, "hard sinkers".

All of these factors hurt him in the "I knows them when I sees them" segment of the BBWAA electorate, which is a large one.

[Bushrod]

were his practical jokes that bad?

how much weight do people give a guy for being the best at one major thing in their prime? I heard Blyleven threw the best curveball of his day. how important is that in valuing the guy's career?

how about the great practitioners of other pitches, like sliders, screwballs, drop balls (sinkers?), split-finger, knuckleball? change? where do they stand in terms of recognition?

Pete Rose said the hardest pitch to hit is a "super spitter, like Gaylord Perry's."

is the best curve the equivalent of being the best bunter, for instance? best outfield arm? the curve plays a big role, doesn't it?

what is average speed for a good knuckleball?

[ElHalo]

how much weight do people give a guy for being the best at one major thing in their prime? I heard Blyleven threw the best curveball of his day. how important is that in valuing the guy's career?

how about the great practitioners of other pitches, like sliders, screwballs, drop balls (sinkers?), split-finger, knuckleball? change? where do they stand in terms of recognition?

what is average speed for a good knuckleball?

I don't know that you give something like that all that much weight. Andy Pettite has arguably the greatest pickoff move of all time, but let's not all get up at once to usher him into the Hall of Fame.

Some pitchers take their mastery of a pitch, like Carl Hubbell's screwball or Mariano Rivera's cutter, and turn it into a mastery of a league. Blyleven never really did that. He turned mastery of a pitch into a pretty good career, but not a great career. And, as has been said before, it's not the Hall of Pretty Good.

As for knuckleballs... mostly around the 70's, I believe. Though the Texas Rangers have a pitcher named R.A. Dickey who throws what I swear to God looks like a 90 mph knuckler. I was flabbergasted the first time I saw him pitch, and thought it must be some kind of splitter or forkball, but the slow motion replays showed exactly zero rotational inertia on the balls, and the radar gun was hitting 90 mph. Incredible.

[Bushrod]

How is Dickey doing with that super knuckler? I'll look it up. that sounds like something in violation of the Geneva Baseball Convention. I'll bet some batters have taken a look and just laughed at the stuff they have to try to hit.

[Cougar]

I can't find the thread where this was mentioned, but an anti-Blyleven guy used Bert's All-Star appearances (2) as an argument against him.

The argument was, he only made two All-Star teams, 1973 and 1985, and he only made the second All-Star team because the Indians had to send the representative.

Well, in 1985, Blyleven started the All-Star game, which he certainly wouldn't have done if he were a mere placeholder for the Cleveland franchise. The truth is, Bert was recognized as one of baseball's best pitchers by then.

Just stumbled upon that little fact, and wanted to blow that argument out of the water, even at this late date.

[ElHalo]

Ok, you can blow that argument out of the water... but what about the argument that he just wasn't very good?

[Cougar]

Ok, you can blow that argument out of the water... but what about the argument that he just wasn't very good?

Was that you who made that argument? Sounds like you.

Anyway, I don't feel like completely refighting the Blyleven war. If you can explain to me how a guy can get 60 shutouts, 287 wins, and 3701 K's without being "very good", I'll concede.

Furthermore:

The 60 SHO are #9 all time. Post WWII, only Spahn, Seaver and Ryan have more.

The 3701 K's are #5 all time, and no one is passing him this decade, at least.

[DoubleX]

I think Blyleven just had some rotten luck getting wins. If he had 13 more, there wouldn't be any question about his hall of fame chances. 13 out of the first 16 seasons of his career, he posted an ERA under 3.50, and an ERA of 3.00 or lower a pretty amazing 10 times in those 16 seasons (plus one more in his third to last, so 11 times he posted an ERA of 3.00 or lower). Yet, despite his regularly low ERA, which was well below the league averages, he had an inordinate amount of losses and no decisions. This shows that he was unlucky - he consistently pitched well but his teams just didn't win as many games as they should have when he was on the mound. He was definitely a much better pitcher than his 250 losses suggest. So if not for his poor luck, he should have won a bunch more of those 250 losses, won 20 games a bunch of times, and been well over 300 for his career and thus an unquestioned hall of famer.

Here's a look at his ERA relative to the league and the mediocre records he amassed year after year despite a usually very good ERA.

1970: 3.18 (+117), 10-9
1971: 2.81 (+127), 16-15
1972: 2.73 (+118), 17-17
1973: 2.52 (+158), 20-17
1974: 2.66 (+142), 17-17
1975: 3.00 (+129), 15-10 (10 no decisions!)
1976: 2.87 (+125), 13-16
1977: 2.72 (+151), 14-12
1978: 3.03 (+123), 14-10 (10 no decisions!)
1979: 3.60 (+108), 12-5 (20 no decisions!)
1980: 3.82 (95), 8-13 (11 no decisions!) - first time above league average
1981: 2.88 (+126), 11-7
1982: Injured, only made 4 starts
1983: 3.91 (+108), 7-10
1984: 2.87 (+142) 19-7
1985: 3.16 (+134) 17-14
1986: 4.01 (+108) 17-14 - first ERA over 4, but still below league average
1987: 4.01 (+116) 15-12 (10 no decisions!)
1988: 5.43 (75), 10-17
1989: 2.73 (+140), 17-5 (11 no decisions!)

Basically, I think that Blyleven is one of the unluckiest pitchers of all time. Only once did he really have a record anywhere remotely indicative of how good a starting pitcher he was (1984, 19-7, 2.87 ERA). For over 15 years, he was a very good to great pitcher, far better than his mediocre record, littered with losses and no decisions, would suggest. Plus his career ERA+ is better than hall of famers such as Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Phil Niekro, Don Sutton, Early Wynn, Catfish Hunter, Jim Bunning, Red Ruffing, Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines, Rube Marquad, Pud Galvin, Jack Chesbro, Chief Bender, Ted Lyons, and is the same as the great Warren Spahn; not to mention that when he retired he had struck out the 3rd most hitters ever. So to me, Blyleven is without a doubt a hall of famer, he just had a career littered with a consistent rotten luck.

[ElHalo]

Was that you who made that argument? Sounds like you.

Anyway, I don't feel like completely refighting the Blyleven war. If you can explain to me how a guy can get 60 shutouts, 287 wins, and 3701 K's without being "very good", I'll concede.

Nah, that wasn't me that made that argument. I never really got into it, because I felt kind of indifferent to the whole subject.

Bert Blyleven never led his league in ERA, never led his league in W, never led his league in K rate, never led his league in BB rate, never led his league in BAA... he was very good, but not great, for a very long time. That, to me, doesn't scream "Hall of Fame." He had two seasons with ERA+'s over 150, at 151 and 158... compare that to decidedly non-HoF pitcher Bret Saberhagen, who also had two seasons with ERA+'s over 150... a 152 and a 178.

I'm just not impressed by above average players who stick around forever. Doesn't get the juices flowing. His longevity and mediocrity can be seen pretty clearly by his high grey ink total (22nd all time) and low black ink total (16th all time). The year he started the All Star game, he finished 5th in the AL in ERA. 5th is ok, I guess... but it's not Hall calibre. Sorry, but high counting stats don't mean a single thing to me. That's just indicitave of a talent to not get injured and an ability to withstand dimunition of skills... neither of which are things which make a player great. Talent is what makes a player great... and while Blyleven had some, he didn't have enough to make the Hall.

[DoubleX]

El Halo, you didn't address my point that Blyleven's ERA+ is equal to or better than at least 20 hall of famers. Almost all of Blyleven's stats suggest that his record should have been markedly better than it actually was. He should have been a 300 game winner and a multiple 20 game winner, luck just wasn't on his side. A guy with an ERA consistently under 3 and posting 200+ Ks should not lose 15+ games year after year. Plus in 6 seasons he had at least 10 no decisisons. The guys record suffered from bad luck, not from his talent.

[bf-lurker]

Based on Keith Woolner's method, Blyleven is the 11th best pitcher using career numbers and the 34th best based on peak.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1604

[dgarza]

Bert Blyleven never led his league in ERA, never led his league in W, never led his league in K rate, never led his league in BB rate, never led his league in BAA

Of course El Halo is selectively omiting the fact that he did lead his league in Ks once and in ERA+ once.

[ElHalo]

Of course El Halo is selectively omiting the fact that he did lead his league in Ks once and in ERA+ once.

Well, duh, I'm not going to argue against myself. ;)

As to him having a good ERA+ (DoubleX, I wasn't trying to ignore your post, it just went up while I was typing mine, so I didn't see it)...

Of the guys you've listed, I'd say that Ryan, Chesbro, Carlton, Roberts, Bunning, Bender, and Spahn are deserving HoF'ers... the rest of the guys you listed, in my opinion, are not. Since they don't belong in the HoF, whether they're better or worse than Blyleven is irrelavent, and so I'll only argue the other guys.

Ryan's a deserving HoF'er because of his tremendous strikeout credentials, his propensity for no hitters, his unparalelled longevity (longevity normally doesn't count much for me, but when you can stick around as long as Ryan did, and still be an effective player, that's impressive), and his best ever career batting average against. That much being said, he's a horrifically overrated pitcher, and isn't a first tier HoF'er by any stretch of the imagination.

Steve Carlton... true, he has a lower OPS+ than Blyleven, but he also has 4 Cy Young awards, which is 4 more than Blyleven. He also has an ERA title and 5 strikeout titles, but the 4 Cy Youngs is really the clincher. 4 seperate times, he was seen as the best pitcher in his league... an honor Blyleven never had bestowed upon him. You gotta beat the best to be the best. Note, though: I'm not as high as a lot of people are on Carlton and Ryan... ordinarily I'd be on the other side of the argument about them. But they both beat Blyleven.

Chesbro. He's in almost solely on the strength of his 1904 season, and I'm ok with that. Winning 41 games in a season in the modern era, on 51 starts, with the best BAA in the league and the fourth best ERA despite throwing up a league best 455 innings (second place had 390)... that's pretty impressive. I'd be willing to go so far as to say that the numbers that Chesbro put up that season are more impressive than the sum total of the career accomplishments of several pitchers in the Hall. But then, I am like that... I'm much more impressed with isolated years of brilliance than long stretches of adequacy.

Bunning. You know, I can't make an overly compelling Jim Bunning case for the HoF right now. Maybe I'm too tired. Most of my admiration for Bunning comes from his perfect game against the Mets and the fact that, from 1964 to 1967, he managed to stay in the top 5 in the league in ERA every year despite the fact that Koufax, Drysdale, Marichal, Gibson, etc. were in the league.

Roberts. You see, ordinarily, when I argue about Robin Roberts, it's accentuating the negatives to show that Whitey Ford was better than him. This is new for me, arguing pro-Roberts. Robin Roberts was one of the best pitchers in history at avoiding BB's, having led the league in the category 4 times, and having finished in the top 3 every year from 1951-1960 (with a fourth place finish in 1950). His career total of 1.73 BB/9 innings is kind of hard to fathom. Mostly, though, just look at the ink totals: 16/239 for Blyleven, 64/249 for Roberts. Not even close. Roberts finished in the top 7 of the MVP voting 5 times, including 4 straight years. Blyleven, .... crickets...

And at last we get to the only guys on the list that I'm actually a fan of. Bender and Spahnnie.

Yes, Bender had a lower career OPS+. But look at 1908-1911. 4 straight years of OPS+'s over 145. Blyleven had only the 2 years with OPS+'s over 145 (though of course those two were higher than Bender's best years). He was the ace pitcher on a team that won the WS 3 times, and made it 5 times (though in fairness, the first time he made the series, in 1905, Waddell and Plank were much, much better than him). His numbers got skewed by some shellings at the end of his career, but through his first three WS, he had a 1.30 ERA. Being the staff ace on a WS team carries a lot of weight, in my book.

And Spahn... are you really trying to say that Bertie's better than Spahn? Spahn led his league in ERA 3 times, in W 8 times, in WHIP 4 times, in BAA against once, in K's 4 times... and yes, he does have a slight 14-2 edge in AS game appearances.

Maybe Blyleven's better than guys like Sutton, Neikro, Wynn... I'd actually say that they're all probably of about roughly equal value. But none of them really belong in the Hall.

Using the "better than the worst guy in" standard, sure, Blyleven's better than Don Sutton and Early Wynn. But that doesn't mean he belongs in the Hall.

[Imapotato]

He did lead in something though

HR's allowed...still has the record...yeppers

One other thing to consider if he is HOF material...

[leecemark]

--He just had a 20 year run of bad luck remember. I bet most of those homers came with the wind blowing out.

[Cougar]

This is the only place I've ever been on the web that's anti-Bert. Just weird.

1. On the HR. Yeah, he was pitching in a modern bandbox, the HHH dome, and he was past his prime (35-36 years old), so he hung more curveballs than he should have those seasons.

Really; what's your point? No one here is saying he's Seaver or Maddux; he wasn't that good -- he had flaws, and he's not an inner-circle guy. But the record as a whole is one that is plainly comparable with other pitchers in the HOF.

After all, he broke Robin Roberts' record, and most people are OK with him as a HOFer. Which leads me to...

2. El Halo, buddy, you like Chief Bender better than Robin Roberts or Steve Carlton? Helloooo?

It's really tough to debate with you because you seem to alternate between really astute points and absolute howlers. If you really think Chief Bender was better than Carlton, I flat out just don't know what to say. I just have to throw up my hands. You can't argue a point if you don't agree on basic criteria, and this is shape-of-the-table stuff.

Maybe that's one way to win an argument, I don't know. I could reply with -- "well, Eddie Rommel was better than Bender, and Niekro threw a knuckler too, and Niekro and Carlton are a lot alike, so...take that!" I mean, it's pretty much baloney but it might work if you scramble to reply to it and get way off point.

Point: 60 shutouts. Someone talk about the 60 shutouts.

[leecemark]

--Well obviously those are 60 pretty good games. I don't know that we're that far apart on Blyleven. I think he has a reasonable case for the Hall. I've got him in my top 50 pitchers. I have taken somewhat of a contrarian view in various threads where his name has come up simply because quite a few people have taken the position that he is CLEARLY the best pitcher not in the Hall and that it is foolish to disagree.
-- I happen to think Lon Warneke, Wes Ferrell, Don Newcombe, Luis Tiant, Carl Mays, Urban Shocker and Billy Pierce have cases that can be argued as effectively as Blyleven. Perhaps Jack Morris and Ron Guidry and Jim Kaat and Tommy John as well. You might be able to convince me Blyleven is the best of that group, but IMO he is just one of many contenders for "the best pitcher not in the Hall".
-- Blyleven was a very good pitcher for a very long time. I never saw him as a great pitcher when he was active and I don't see him as a great pitcher now. I'll probably get around to him someday, but it won't be this year and probably not next.

[ElHalo]

2. El Halo, buddy, you like Chief Bender better than Robin Roberts or Steve Carlton? Helloooo?

It's really tough to debate with you because you seem to alternate between really astute points and absolute howlers. If you really think Chief Bender was better than Carlton, I flat out just don't know what to say. I just have to throw up my hands. You can't argue a point if you don't agree on basic criteria, and this is shape-of-the-table stuff.

Maybe that's one way to win an argument, I don't know. I could reply with -- "well, Eddie Rommel was better than Bender, and Niekro threw a knuckler too, and Niekro and Carlton are a lot alike, so...take that!" I mean, it's pretty much baloney but it might work if you scramble to reply to it and get way off point.

Point: 60 shutouts. Someone talk about the 60 shutouts.

Yes, I like Chief Bender better than Steve Carlton or Robbin Roberts. No, I don't think he was better than either of them. I also really, really like Luis Sojo... but there's very few major league players that AREN'T better than him. My statements about being a fan of Bender and Spahn had nothing to do with where I placed them relative to each other or to other pitchers, it's just that I'm a fan of those two pitchers, and I'm used to arguing for them. I'm used to arguing against Roberts and Carlton. Doesn't mean I think that I think Bender is better than them.

Put it this way: If I'm ranking the pitchers named in order of how good they are, I'd probably go:

Spahn
Roberts
Carlton
Ryan
Bunning
Bender
Blyleven
Chesbro

(Note: I've just said that Blyleven's a better pitcher than Chesbro... but that Chesbro's more deserving of the Hall. Should give you a bit of a hint about my Hall criteria there).

If I'm ranking them in order of how well I like them, it'd go like this:

Bender
Spahn
Ryan
Bunning
Carlton
Roberts
Blyleven
Chesbro

So, when I said I'm a "fan" of Bender and Spahn... it didn't mean I thought they were the best. Just that I liked them, as a baseball fan, the most.

Oh, and as to the Chesbro thing... I think that, since Chesbro was basically a one-year pony, his 1904 stats aren't indicitave of his true talent, and are therefore more just a fluky anomoly than an indicator of where his true talent lie... hence I think Blyleven's a better pitcher.

That much being said, this is the Hall of FAME... and FAMOUS accomplishments should be recognized, with a guy who won 41 games in the modern era being a pretty extreme example. For that one year, at least, I'm pretty sure that people thought of Jack Chesbro as the greatest pitcher ever... even if he wasn't, and even if none of his other years made that impression stick. I'm also pretty sure that, at no time in his entire career, did anyone think that Bert Blyleven was the greatest pitcher ever. I'm fairly certain you can't name me any one point in Bertie's career when a large number of baseball fans would say "If I have to win one game, and I need a pitcher to do it, anybody in the history of the game... I'm gonna pass on Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson, and go with Bert Blyleven."

At the same time, I'm pretty sure that, at one point, even if it was in a very brief period in 1904, you pose the same question to baseball fans, and a large number of them would say "Hey, you know, Cy Young is an absolutely amazing pitcher, and Old Hoss was the best there ever was... but I'm gonna have to take a chance and go with Jack Chesbro on this one."

And that, to me, makes Jack Chesbro a more worthy HoF'er than Bert Blyleven... even though Bertie was a better pitcher overall. Because the Hall of Fame is supposed celebrate pinnacles, and Jack Chesbro had one heck of a pinnacle.

[Cougar]

--Well obviously those are 60 pretty good games. I don't know that we're that far apart on Blyleven. I think he has a reasonable case for the Hall. I've got him in my top 50 pitchers. I have taken somewhat of a contrarian view in various threads where his name has come up simply because quite a few people have taken the position that he is CLEARLY the best pitcher not in the Hall and that it is foolish to disagree.
-- I happen to think Lon Warneke, Wes Ferrell, Don Newcombe, Luis Tiant, Carl Mays, Urban Shocker and Billy Pierce have cases that can be argued as effectively as Blyleven. Perhaps Jack Morris and Ron Guidry and Jim Kaat and Tommy John as well. You might be able to convince me Blyleven is the best of that group, but IMO he is just one of many contenders for "the best pitcher not in the Hall".
-- Blyleven was a very good pitcher for a very long time. I never saw him as a great pitcher when he was active and I don't see him as a great pitcher now. I'll probably get around to him someday, but it won't be this year and probably not next.


I think it's hard to dispute that, in its totality, Blyleven had the best career of that group.

Now, on the other hand, were you to say that the other guys had higher one-, three-, or five-year peaks, and that's more important to you, I wouldn't be very inclined to argue the point.

So we're not that far apart.

Fact is, we're all pretty hardened in our positions on Blyleven at this point, so I probably shouldn't have started this thread if I didn't want to refight the war.

That post I initially mentioned with the 1985 AS pick being only as a mandatory team representative (which I couldn't find; perhaps it had been edited and corrected) really irked me, and I remembered it, and when I discovered it was wrong I wanted to shout it from the rooftops. That's really all.

[leecemark]

--In the interest of full disclosure, I have to confess to being the author of that post. It was part of a longer one on Blyleven's lack of support in Cy Young voting and All Star games. I noted his losing record and the fact that the Indians were lousy and assumed he was just the team rep that year. If he started the game, then my assumption must have been wrong. He made both his All Star selections on merit. I never edited it so its still out there somewhere slanderign poor Bert. My apologies.

[ElHalo]

Point: 60 shutouts. Someone talk about the 60 shutouts.

Ok. 60 shutouts. That's nice. What does it prove?

Using an analogy I use all... the... time..., Pete Rose has 4256 hits... does that make him the best hitter ever?

Nolan Ryan has 7 no hitters... does that make him the best pitcher ever?

Counting stats have to do with being pretty good, and sticking around a long time. They don't impress me. At all. At all. And I'll say it again: At all.

Yes, he had 60 shutouts... but he never cracked double digits, and he had more than 6 only once. Obviously, in today's world, where 2 shutouts can lead the league, that's extraordinary. But in Bert's time, when John Tudor was throwing up double digit shutouts, and Fernando Valenzuela was throwing up 8 in a strike year...

I'll put it this way: In the 70's, there were 20 possible shutout leads to take. 10 in the AL, 10 in the NL. Of those 20... 13 would have taken at least 7 shutouts to win. So more than half the time... Bert's usual 6 or less wouldn't even be enough to lead his own league. Matter of fact, Blyleven led his league in Shutouts 3 times... same number of times as Luis Tiant. Ok, that's nice. One more time than Mark Mulder or Pat Hentgen. Oh. One more time than Lou Fette or Ken Raffensberger. Uh-huh.

See, I think we're just disagreeing here on definitional terms. You think "Hall of Fame," and you look at career totals, because that's what the Hall of Fame is to you... a celebration of great careers. That's not what the Hall of Fame is to me. To me, it's a celebration of great players... and great players aren't defined by career totals. They're defined by the number of screaming kids that stay after the game trying to get their autograph. They're defined by the amount of time opposing teams spend preparing to just deal with that one player. They're defined by greatness, and greatness is something that can only come of the moment... not in retrospect. If Brian Giles manages to stay reasonably healthy and productive in San Diego for a few more years, he's going to have some pretty impressive career totals... but he's not going to be a Hall of Famer, because he was never the greatest, he was never the best, he was never the King... he was never the one you'd want to tell your grandkids about. That's really the true Hall of Fame test: Do I want to tell my grandkids about watching this guy play? Which one would you be more likely to tell your grandkids about... Doc Gooden's 1985 season, or Bert Blyleven's... career. I know for me, it'd have to be the Doc. And that's why Doc is more deserving of a place in the Hall than Bert. Not that I think he deserves one at all, mind you... Just more deserving than Bert.

[Cougar]

--In the interest of full disclosure, I have to confess to being the author of that post. It was part of a longer one on Blyleven's lack of support in Cy Young voting and All Star games. I noted his losing record and the fact that the Indians were lousy and assumed he was just the team rep that year. If he started the game, then my assumption must have been wrong. He made both his All Star selections on merit. I never edited it so its still out there somewhere slandering poor Bert. My apologies.

Apology accepted. Given his W-L for the year, it's not an outlandish assumption, so I understand how it happened. It was certainly not my intention to call anyone out on it (and I truly didn't remember it was you); I just wanted to correct it.

[Cougar]

Ok. 60 shutouts. That's nice. What does it prove?

Using an analogy I use all... the... time..., Pete Rose has 4256 hits... does that make him the best hitter ever?

Nolan Ryan has 7 no hitters... does that make him the best pitcher ever?

Counting stats have to do with being pretty good, and sticking around a long time. They don't impress me. At all. At all. And I'll say it again: At all.

Yes, he had 60 shutouts... but he never cracked double digits, and he had more than 6 only once. Obviously, in today's world, where 2 shutouts can lead the league, that's extraordinary. But in Bert's time, when John Tudor was throwing up double digit shutouts, and Fernando Valenzuela was throwing up 8 in a strike year...

I'll put it this way: In the 70's, there were 20 possible shutout leads to take. 10 in the AL, 10 in the NL. Of those 20... 13 would have taken at least 7 shutouts to win. So more than half the time... Bert's usual 6 or less wouldn't even be enough to lead his own league. Matter of fact, Blyleven led his league in Shutouts 3 times... same number of times as Luis Tiant. Ok, that's nice. One more time than Mark Mulder or Pat Hentgen. Oh. One more time than Lou Fette or Ken Raffensberger. Uh-huh.

See, I think we're just disagreeing here on definitional terms. You think "Hall of Fame," and you look at career totals, because that's what the Hall of Fame is to you... a celebration of great careers. That's not what the Hall of Fame is to me. To me, it's a celebration of great players... and great players aren't defined by career totals. They're defined by the number of screaming kids that stay after the game trying to get their autograph. They're defined by the amount of time opposing teams spend preparing to just deal with that one player. They're defined by greatness, and greatness is something that can only come of the moment... not in retrospect. If Brian Giles manages to stay reasonably healthy and productive in San Diego for a few more years, he's going to have some pretty impressive career totals... but he's not going to be a Hall of Famer, because he was never the greatest, he was never the best, he was never the King... he was never the one you'd want to tell your grandkids about. That's really the true Hall of Fame test: Do I want to tell my grandkids about watching this guy play? Which one would you be more likely to tell your grandkids about... Doc Gooden's 1985 season, or Bert Blyleven's... career. I know for me, it'd have to be the Doc. And that's why Doc is more deserving of a place in the Hall than Bert. Not that I think he deserves one at all, mind you... Just more deserving than Bert.

Yeah, we do disagree on definitions. Ultimately, you're arguing impressions. You back them up with facts (usually pretty selectively applied), but ultimately it's your opinion.

Facts are stubborn things. As much as it might seem otherwise, I don't have any particular personal investment in Bert Blyleven. I just study the history and the numbers, and I can tell he was that good. I try to debate facts, and sometimes I learn something, and adjust my beliefs accordingly.

I've come to believe that Blyleven is probably (in deference to Leecemark) the most deserving pitcher not in the Hall. There's a whole lot to back that up, and frankly there are some good arguments against it as well. No offense, but the fact that he never took your breath away just ain't one of them.

And no, he never had that season that made you feel all tingly inside -- he just had very good one, after very good one, after very good one.

You know what, though, he certainly had his moments. He was wonderful in the postseason, and furthermore we can point to 60 great games that he threw. Strikeouts are exciting, and he did that more often than all but four men ever. And if my kid ever asks me about players who threw the curveball, I'll probably tell him that, over time, Bert Blyleven threw the best one I ever saw.

I've tried to agree to disagree with you a few times now. I understand where you're coming from. It's really not an absurd position, making the HOF about Fame...unless you take it too far. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but even obliquely putting Blyleven in the same class as Ken Raffensberger is just stuff that can't stand.

For that matter, so is saying Gooden belongs in the Hall more than Bert. This is the sort of argument that generally shouldn't even be dignified with a response, but you're so damn articulate (much more so than the sorts who usually make such claims) that you might actually convince people of such nonsense. (You must be scary good with juries.) So it's irresponsible to let it go unrebutted.

Gooden was one of the best pitchers ever for 2-3 years -- an important achievement, and one he got an award for -- a Cy Young. He was one of the best of his day for another 3-4, and then fell off a cliff and hung around as a fifth starter for ten years (when he wasn't suspended for drugs). His career is quite subpar to almost all HOF pitchers; it might be comparable to the Haines and Marquard mistake enshrinees.

Blyleven was a very good major league pitcher for nearly 20 years. In the early part of his career, he was a near-great one. His career compares favorably with at least half of the pitchers currently in the Hall of Fame.

The Hall of Fame is a career award, despite how one might otherwise wish it -- that's why there's a 10-season minimum. When you compare careers, it's not close. Blyleven is a credible HOF, Gooden really isn't, except by a much looser standard than most observers would endorse.

[leecemark]

--To be fair to El Halo, he said pretty clearly that he didn't think Gooden was a hall of Fame pitcher. He had Hall of Fame talent. For a brief time he was as good as any pitcher ever, but as you say, drugs and injuries turned him into a journeyman far too soon for him to have a serious case. He WAS a much better pitcher than Blyleven at his best. Many non-Hall of Fame pitchers had runs of 3-5 years that were clearly better than Blyleven.
--Blyleven is an extremely unusual case in that he pitched at more or less the same level for nearly 20 years. Never truely great, but almost always very good. There are a fair number of position players who are at least sort of similar, but few -if any- pitchers.
--Cougar, we've argued enough players over enough threads for you to know I value peak over longevity. Its not that I'm not looking at career acheivement, I just like to see a period of greatness somewhere along the way. I fall somewhere between El Halo's extreme peak view and your willingness to consider the very good if they pile up large enough career numbers. Reasonably intelligent and fair minded people can look at the same data and come up with very different conclusions based on how they weight it. You may recall how we got further and further apart on Vada Pinson as we disected his career. Both of us starting at maybe and you ending up with yes and me no.
--Blyleven isn't quite like that. His very best was maybe slightly worse than Pinson, but he stayed near that for MUCH longer. The weight of his career numbers are eventually going to be impossible to ignore. I see him as pretty comparable to Don Sutton or Tommy John. Of that group, Sutton achieved a magic number the others didn't (granted he played for generally better teams than Blyleven) and moved to the head of the line. Blyleven is in that line. He will get to the head of it someday. I can't work up any enthusiasm for him though. I can understand people pushing him for Coopertown and expect them to succeed in getting him there one day. I do think it is premature to have him on BBF ballots.
--Some of Blyleven's supporters have let their zest for his cause run away with them and try to make him out to be the all time great he never was. I feel compelled to rebut the claim that Blyleven was a great pitcher just as strongly as you feel the need to rebut ElHalo's comment that Gooden was better. Gooden was better, just not nearly as long. I can remember - and I was an adult not an impressionable child - wondering in the mid-80s if Gooden was the best pitcher ever. Obviously he was not. Blyleven has a much better case for the Hall. If people were arguing that Bert was a very good pitcher who accomplished enough to deserve enshirement over the course of his career, I'd never have made a single post to the contary. However, I will always be compelled to argue the opposite side when anyone tries to sell him as a great pitcher. He wasn't.

[dgarza]

Well, duh, I'm not going to argue against myself. ;)


Exactly. By omiting and/or ignoring issues one can make a case against any player.

[The Dude]

Here's a better place than anywhere else to post my Career Value standings. This isn't "who was the best pitcher of all time" or "Who am I going to have go out there and pitch that one game", or "how famous a pitcher was this man". This is "how valuable was that pitcher to my team".

Now, I had to come up with a 'formula' for this. I figured, what were the two most important stats? ERA+ and WHIP. 2nd most important, ERA and IP.
So, points for seasonal rank in ERA + and WHIP came down to 10 points for 1st, 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, 7 for 4th, 6 for 5th. Only top 5 get points each season. ERA and IP is 8 for 1st, 7 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, 5 for 4th, 4 for 5th.

Then I thought, what's most important after not allowing runs, throwing a lot of innings, not allowing hits, and not allowing walks. Well, of course, it's completing games. It's basically an extended stat of IP. Then, strikeouts. A stat controlled by the pitcher, batter, catcher, and to a lesser extent, the ump. No one else can effect this stat. So, SO and CG get 6 for 1st, 5 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th.

Then it comes down to SHO and W. Wins have to count for something, and shutouts are like a bonus. 5 for 1st, 4 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, 2 for 4th, 1 for 5th.

Bonuses, are 10 points for a triple crown, and 5 points for a Cy Young (picked by myself, with help from RMB).

Finally, there needed to be a slight adjustment. Each expansion year, it's going to be harder to league your league a little bit. So we need to give a few extra half points here and there.

1901-1960: 1x multiplyer 1961-1968:1.03 Multiplyer
NL
--
1969-1992:1.04 Multiplyer 1993-1997:1.06 multiplyer 1998+:1.08 multiplyer

You may say What? Giving almost .1 extra on each point for playing in just a different year? in 1998 the guy is pitching against 15 other teams pitchers, not 7. For example, totalling in Randy Johnson's career for WHIP, he would get a 68 if he played prior to 1960. He got a 73 for when he did play. I hardly think 5 extra points is A LOT for having to deal with twice as many pitchers.

AL
--
1969-1976:1.4 Multiplyer 1976+:1.6 Multiplyer

So, then come the rankings. The HOF mark on my CV Monitor, is 2.00+ (I moved a decimal two to the left on everything. 100 points, becoming a 1.00). Only 3 of the 44 pitchers that have ranked 2.00+, have not made the HOF. These being Bert Blyleven, Bucky Walters, and Babe Adams.

one last thing. You had to have at least played 3/4 of your career post 19th century. Sorry, no Cy Young or Radbourn here.

Now, here are the top 10 all time on my list-
1.Walter Johnson- 7.67
2.Roger Clemens- 6.27
3.Grover Cleveland Alexander- 5.53
4.Lefty Grove- 5.41
5.Christy Mathewson- 5.30
6.Warren Spahn- 5.27
7.Greg Maddux- 5.09
8.Randy Johnson-4.66
9.Tom Seaver-4.11
10.Nolan Ryan-3.92

Now, here are a few more things along the list I'm going to point out.
12.Sandy Koufax-3.63 (that's how good those 6 seasons were)
16.Pedro Martinez-3.48
17.Dazzy Vance-3.42
18.Bert Blyleven-3.32
30.Curt Schilling-2.66
32.Kevin Brown-2.54
44.Don Sutton-2.02 (Lowest score over the HOF mark)
135.Chief Bender-.74 (Lowest score for a HOF, will be lower once i'm done. Only ranked about 250 pitchers so far).


Sure, Blyleven was only the best pitcher in his league in 1984. But throughout his entire career, he was a consistenly good (though his wins wont show that) pitcher, as his grey ink shows. He's one of the 20 most valuable pitchers ever. If he had played on good teams, there'd be no discussion wether or not he belongs in the hall.

What someone fails to also note about Blyleven compared to Tiant in shutouts, is Blyleven was top 3 7 times. Tiant was top 3, only those 3 times he was first. As for Mulder, top 3 2 times. Hentgen? Top 3 three times.

I can not stress this enough. This is NOT HOW GREAT OF A PITCHER A PERSON WAS, this is HOW VALUABLE THIS PITCHER WAS.

[DoubleX]

As to him having a good ERA+ (DoubleX, I wasn't trying to ignore your post, it just went up while I was typing mine, so I didn't see it)...

Roberts. You see, ordinarily, when I argue about Robin Roberts, it's accentuating the negatives to show that Whitey Ford was better than him. This is new for me, arguing pro-Roberts. Robin Roberts was one of the best pitchers in history at avoiding BB's, having led the league in the category 4 times, and having finished in the top 3 every year from 1951-1960 (with a fourth place finish in 1950). His career total of 1.73 BB/9 innings is kind of hard to fathom. Mostly, though, just look at the ink totals: 16/239 for Blyleven, 64/249 for Roberts. Not even close. Roberts finished in the top 7 of the MVP voting 5 times, including 4 straight years. Blyleven, .... crickets...

And Spahn... are you really trying to say that Bertie's better than Spahn? Spahn led his league in ERA 3 times, in W 8 times, in WHIP 4 times, in BAA against once, in K's 4 times... and yes, he does have a slight 14-2 edge in AS game appearances.

Maybe Blyleven's better than guys like Sutton, Neikro, Wynn... I'd actually say that they're all probably of about roughly equal value. But none of them really belong in the Hall.

Using the "better than the worst guy in" standard, sure, Blyleven's better than Don Sutton and Early Wynn. But that doesn't mean he belongs in the Hall.

Since you raised so many points, I just picked a few to respond to. First, I didn't realize that you never saw my first post, please accept my apologies. As for the other points.

- To respond to, "Blyleven, .... crickets..." - how's the guy supposed to contend for postseason awards when he's confounded by the poorest of luck? He lost and got no decisions in a completely inordinate amount of games compared to the rest of his stats, and we all know that a pitchers win/loss record can be a huge factor in determining postseason awards. If Blyleven is losing 15+ games year after year, despite a 2.70 and 200 Ks, he's not going to be considered for awards. His low black ink total is just a reflection of his crappy luck.

- I'm in no way trying to say that Blyleven is better than Spahn. I was actually surprised to see that Spahn was equal to Blyleven in ERA+, so I figured it was a very poignant example to illustrate Bert's hall of fame credentials as well as his rotten luck.

- I do believe that if a player is better than the worst player of his position in the hall, than he belongs. By your own admission, Blyleven is better than at least Sutton and Wynn, and if they are in, Blyleven is in. Think of Bert as an individual, he achieved a great deal and deserves recognition for it, especially since others who were not as good have received that recognition. Is it fair to Bert as a human being to be denied the recognition that others have received for doing less? Bert's career in baseball is just all about bad luck.

[dgarza]

Now let's say Blyleven was in the HOF right now.
By my count, the total number of pitchers in would come to 61, including relief.
Here's how Bert would rank in various catagories:

W/L %: - 56th - top 92% - .534

Wins : - 22nd - top 36% - 287

Wins/162 : - 48th w/7 others - top 90% - 14

Games : - 14th w/1 other - top 25% - 692

Complete Games : - 39th - top 64% - 242

Complete Games/162 : - 51st w/3 others - top 89% - 11

Shutouts : - 9th - top 15% - 60

Innings : - 13th - top 23% - 4970

Innings/162 : - 39th - top 64% - 245.3

Strikeouts : - 3rd - top 5% - 3701

Strikeouts/162 : - 7th - top 11% - 182

Walks : - 49th - top 80% - 1322

Walks/162 : - 31st w/2 others - top 54% - 65

ERA : - 48th - top 79% - 3.31

ERA+ : - 35th w/4 others - top 64% - 118

[Imapotato]

This is the only place I've ever been on the web that's anti-Bert. Just weird.

After all, he broke Robin Roberts' record, and most people are OK with him as a HOFer. Which leads me to...


Well I am not really 'ok' with Roberts in the HOF...I think he came in when the only great pitcher in the NL was Warren Spahn, so he looked better than say...if he came in during the 70's. With myself it's all how they compare with their peers...and Bert just doesn't compare IMO with AL pitchers during his time.

[Imapotato]

So, then come the rankings. The HOF mark on my CV Monitor, is 2.00+ (I moved a decimal two to the left on everything. 100 points, becoming a 1.00). Only 3 of the 44 pitchers that have ranked 2.00+, have not made the HOF. These being Bert Blyleven, Bucky Walters, and Babe Adams.

one last thing. You had to have at least played 3/4 of your career post 19th century. Sorry, no Cy Young or Radbourn here.

Now, here are the top 10 all time on my list-
1.Walter Johnson- 7.67
2.Roger Clemens- 6.27
3.Grover Cleveland Alexander- 5.53
4.Lefty Grove- 5.41
5.Christy Mathewson- 5.30
6.Warren Spahn- 5.27
7.Greg Maddux- 5.09
8.Randy Johnson-4.66
9.Tom Seaver-4.11
10.Nolan Ryan-3.92

Now, here are a few more things along the list I'm going to point out.
12.Sandy Koufax-3.63 (that's how good those 6 seasons were)
16.Pedro Martinez-3.48
17.Dazzy Vance-3.42
18.Bert Blyleven-3.32
30.Curt Schilling-2.66
32.Kevin Brown-2.54
44.Don Sutton-2.02 (Lowest score over the HOF mark)
135.Chief Bender-.74 (Lowest score for a HOF, will be lower once i'm done. Only ranked about 250 pitchers so far).


Sure, Blyleven was only the best pitcher in his league in 1984. But throughout his entire career, he was a consistenly good (though his wins wont show that) pitcher, as his grey ink shows. He's one of the 20 most valuable pitchers ever. If he had played on good teams, there'd be no discussion wether or not he belongs in the hall.

What someone fails to also note about Blyleven compared to Tiant in shutouts, is Blyleven was top 3 7 times. Tiant was top 3, only those 3 times he was first. As for Mulder, top 3 2 times. Hentgen? Top 3 three times.

I can not stress this enough. This is NOT HOW GREAT OF A PITCHER A PERSON WAS, this is HOW VALUABLE THIS PITCHER WAS.

Nice, although I don't like the 3/4 rule...nice if it was after the mound was pushed back from 50 ft...Cy Young belongs in EVERY pitcher list :)

[The Dude]

I didn't realize, I forgot to mention that SO/9 IP is counted as well. It's in the 54321 section with W and SHO.

I did Cy Young from his 1901-1911 playing career. =P
He gets a 3.06 for those 11 years, and slides into 22 place, behind Hal Newhouser and in front of Early Wynn.

Here's 11-20.
11.Robin Roberts 3.85
12.Sandy Koufax 3.63
13.Bob Feller 3.62
14.Steve Carlton 3.59
15.Carl Hubbell 3.54
16.Pedro J. Martinez 3.48
17.Dazzy Vance 3.42
18.Bert Blyleven 3.32
19.Jim Palmer 3.19
20.Jim Bunning 3.16

Few more names-
29.Mike Mussina-2.74
62.Tom Glavine-1.75
112.Tim Hudson-.97
169.Esteban Loaiza-.40
172.Mark Prior-.38

Here's some 'average' seasons for pitchers (taking out any years of less than 25 GS)-
Walter Johnson-.43
Roger Clemens-.33
Warren Spahn-.29
Randy Johnson-.36
Sandy Koufax-.45
Pedro Martinez-.44
Dazzy Vance-.38
Mark Prior-.38

The best possible season you could have, ranges from 78(1901-1960)-(1998+)97.

If you think that's large, you're probably saying "No wonder Curt Schilling has a HOF score. If he pitched earlier in his career, he'd be under."
Curt Schilling with no adjustment-2.51
Curt Schilling with adjustment-2.66

[leecemark]

--Dudecar, I think you overate K's a little in ranking your pitchers. The biggest problem with your K's though is not adjusting for era. Strike outs have gone up consistently over time as more people swing for the fences and the stigma associated with striking out has faded. Very few pitchers from the early days have K rates as good as the average pitcher today. A system that has Cy Young 22nd all time needs some tinkering with.

[ElHalo]

Leecemark,

Remember that his 22nd ranking of Cy Young includes ONLY Young's numbers from 1901 on... Young pitched 11 years before that, years that aren't counted by Dudecar here.

[The Dude]

Leece, it doesn't matter how many K's you got, or how large the K/ratio is. It's "Where you in the top five?"

Oh, and as ElHalo said, I only counted Young from 1901-1911 to show how good those 10 years were. =P

[RuthMayBond]

Bert Blyleven never led his league in ERA, never led his league in W, never led his league in K rate, never led his league in BB rate, never led his league in BAA...

His longevity and mediocrity can be seen pretty clearly by his high grey ink total (22nd all time) and low black ink total (16th all time).

Sorry, but high counting stats don't mean a single thing to me.He was only 2nd in ERA twice (9th or better TEN times), wins are COUNTING stats, 7th or better in K rate FOURTEEN times, 6th or better in BB rate five times. How many HOF pitchers can't even boast these?

Is 16th all time in black ink something to be ashamed of?

Counting stats don't mean a thing to you UNLESS you're talking about Ryan. You talk out of both sides of your mouth

[ElHalo]

Is 16th all time in black ink something to be ashamed of?

Counting stats don't mean a thing to you UNLESS you're talking about Ryan. You talk out of both sides of your mouth

Sorry, I misstated that there... he HAS 16 Black Ink Points. He's 128th all time in Black Ink. My mistake.

And since when am I a Ryan lover? I don't recall that... I might have argued pro Ryan against some marginal player, but you've never heard me call Ryan a top 15 all time pitcher. Go back and read my statements on Ryan at the beginning of this thread... I said he's a deserving HoF'er, but wildly overrated... and the one stat I brought up was his BAA.

[RuthMayBond]

And since when am I a Ryan lover? I don't recall that... I said he's a deserving HoF'er, but wildly overrated... and the one stat I brought up was his BAA.And his Ks, AND his no-nos

[ElHalo]

And his Ks, AND his no-nos

Uh-huh. I spoke of his "tremendous strikeout credentials." Meaning... when he retired, he was easily first all time in K rate, and was the only player besides Sandy Koufax to strike out more than one man an inning (he's now third, behind Randy Johnson and Pedro). He led in K rate twelve times. And in 58 2/3 career postseason innings, he had 63 K's. Those aren't really counting stats... unless you want to count the postseason thing.

And as for no hitters... hey, if you want to consider "number of no hitters pitched" a counting stat, then ok. You got me.

[SilentKiller]

Bert Blyleven's hall of fame numbers continue to go up every year and last year he had 36% of the vote. With no sure fire hall of famers other than Wade Boggs coming along, do you think Bert will finally go to the hall or do you think he belongs there?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Bert Blyleven's hall of fame numbers continue to go up every year and last year he had 36% of the vote. With no sure fire hall of famers other than Wade Boggs coming along, do you think Bert will finally go to the hall or do you think he belongs there?

Blyleven has a lot of ground to make up. 36% is still less than half of what is needed for election. While Boggs is the only legitimate first-year candidate over the next couple years (2007 has three) I don't expect him to surpass Ryne Sandberg, Bruce Sutter, or other players with more support at this time.

If Blyleven gets in at all, it'll be after the three in 2007, as well as Sandberg, Sutter, and probably Gossage and Dawson. Jim Rice has a good shot, as well.
Does he belong? Probably. Will he get in? Not for awhile.

[DoubleX]

Even though 35% does not seem like much, it does give reason for optimism for Blyleven and his supporters:

First, after years of being lumped in with Tommy John, Jim Kaat, and then Jack Morris, last year Blyleven really broke away from that pact and distinguished himself from them. Year after year, the three and then four when Morris was added, were always near each other, receiving 20-25%. Last year was no different except that Blyleven jumped way past the other three, so now he will hopefully be able to attract new individual attention instead of being dismissed as part of a group.

Second, Blyleven (and John) should pick up at least a little support from the Kaat supporters now that Kaat is no longer on the ballot.

Third, I think more and more, the sports media, particularly the internet sites, are featuring columnists that are drawing attention to Blyleven and advocating his case. Slowly but surely, I believe there is a growing swell pushing for his election.

Fourth, Bert is going up. He's not remaining stagnant and he's not going down, which reflects that there is a growing movement in his favor. The more his support and vote totals go up, the more consideration his candidacy will get.

All in all, I believe Blyleven is on a slow yet positive march. Will he ever get there? I'd love to see it, but right now I doubt it. Bert has been one of the unluckiest pitchers of all-time. The amount of losses and no-decisions he received don't match up to how good he was and how low his ERA was for most seasons of his career. The next couple of years will be telling as competition will be light and thus hopefully giving the writers more time to seriously consider Bert's candidacy. I hope his luck gets better, because he was definitely a good enough pitcher to earn those 13 extra wins that are keeping him out of the hall of fame, luck just wasn't on his side.

[SilentKiller]

I think so also. Every year his vote total goes up. And if that continues in about 5 years I'll think he make it. I don't think Rice will make it though. Depends on next year's voting. If Blyleven hits 45% i think he might continue going up.

[Brad Harris]

Bert Blyleven's hall of fame numbers continue to go up every year and last year he had 36% of the vote. With no sure fire hall of famers other than Wade Boggs coming along, do you think Bert will finally go to the hall or do you think he belongs there?

He won't go in this year, but, according to the rules, he ought to be named on every ballot cast this election. The number of ballots that exclude Blyleven is equal to the number of voters who don't know a Hall of Fame pitcher when they see one.

[micsmith]

I think Blyleven should have gotten in a long time ago. But this next election will be the 8th year he's been on the ballot and since the hall stopped using run-off elections in 1968, only 4 players have appeared and taken 8 or more years to get elected:
Wilhelm was elected in his 8th year.
Tony Perez in his 9th
Don Drysdale in his 10th
and Duke Snider in his 11th.

Of course in the previous three or four years to their election they all had much more support than what Blyleven has now.

He won't make it in this upcoming election, but if both Boggs and Sandberg get in, then Blyleven will be one of the front runners for the next election and that's probably his last chance because the next year McGwire, Gwynn, Ripken, Canseco and Baines all make the ballot and after that I doubt Blyleven has a chance because there will be just too many players competing for votes.

[micsmith]

Forgot to add this:
I think Blyleven has a 3 year window to make it. 2006-2009 (minus 2007 because that's when McGwire, Ripken and Gwynn will be inducted).

2005 - Boggs will become eligible and he'll make it and possibly Sandberg will too. Plus Blyleven doesn't have enough support to get in.

2006 - No body of consequence will become newly eligible this year. So Blyleen could make a run.

2007 - McGwire and co. are in. Plus Baines and Canseco are new to the ballot. They'll both probably get some support.

2008 - Tim Raines is the best newcomer so Blyleven could move up in support.

2009 - Blyleven's best shot to make it. Rickey Henderson will become eligible and be elected, but Bruce Sutter (unless he somehow get elected in an earlier year) will no longer be on the ballot.

2010-2012 - These are Blyleven's last three years to get in. Not only will Fre McGriff and Edgar Martinez be new to the ballot, the pitchers that will likely debut during this three year period: Clemens, Maddux, Glavine and Johnson and Blyleven can't compete with these guys.

[Appling]

Bert has been one of the unluckiest pitchers of all-time. The amount of losses and no-decisions he received don't match up to how good he was and how low his ERA was for most seasons of his career.
I agree! With 339 pitching Win Shares, Bert ranks #19 on the Bill James list of pitchers. More WS than HOF pitchers like Nolan Ryan, Fergie Jenkins,Don Sutton or Early Wynn! Yet Bert's "real" wins total is only 287 -- 13 short of that magic 300 number (placing him at number 25 on the career win list thru 2003).

Win Shares confirms that Bert deserved more wins than he got. But even without 300 wins, he deserves to be there because of his career strikeout number (much more impressive when he retired than it is today).

[Brad Harris]

Rich Lederer pointed out to me that Bert Blyleven has his own web site (http://bertblyleven.com/). Click on the "Hall of Fame" link and there's a page with lots of information about Blyleven's career; a "you decide" pitch for the Hall. Some items I'd forgotten or never knew before...

Blyleven's fifteen 1-0 career victories are the third highest, behind Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson (giving him the most "hard luck victories" since the lively ball era began in 1920).

Blyleven is 9th all-time in career shutouts. What's interesting is that he's the only pitcher in the top twenty on that list who isn't already in the Hall of Fame.

Every retired pitcher in the 3,000 strikeout club except Blyleven has reached the Hall of Fame.

5-1 post-season record with 2.47 post-season ERA.

I can't believe there's so many voters who don't believe Blyleven was anything less than a bone fide Hall of Famer. I don't believe there's any justification for not electing him.

[DoubleX]

Rich Lederer pointed out to me that Bert Blyleven has his own web site (http://bertblyleven.com/). Click on the "Hall of Fame" link and there's a page with lots of information about Blyleven's career; a "you decide" pitch for the Hall. Some items I'd forgotten or never knew before...

Blyleven's fifteen 1-0 career victories are the third highest, behind Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson (giving him the most "hard luck victories" since the lively ball era began in 1920).

Blyleven is 9th all-time in career shutouts. What's interesting is that he's the only pitcher in the top twenty on that list who isn't already in the Hall of Fame.

Every retired pitcher in the 3,000 strikeout club except Blyleven has reached the Hall of Fame.

5-1 post-season record with 2.47 post-season ERA.

I can't believe there's so many voters who don't believe Blyleven was anything less than a bone fide Hall of Famer. I don't believe there's any justification for not electing him.

Two interesting things I just learned from an articled that Bert linked to his site. First, that almost 30% of Bert's 250 losses were 1-run defeats, and that 115 of his 250 losses were by 2 runs or less. That's ridiculously unlucky! He should have easily surpassed 300 wins, making these conversations completely moot, because he'd be in. Darn shame.

[Cougar]

Two interesting things I just learned from an articled that Bert linked to his site. First, that almost 30% of Bert's 250 losses were 1-run defeats, and that 115 of his 250 losses were by 2 runs or less. That's ridiculously unlucky! He should have easily surpassed 300 wins, making these conversations completely moot, because he'd be in. Darn shame.

I'm not disputing Bert's qualifications -- he's plainly the best pitcher not inducted -- but I do have a question about this stat: Are those percentages of one- and two-run losses terribly different from those of other pitchers? How many one-run losses did Robin Roberts have? Fergie Jenkins? Heck, Walter Johnson pitched in a lot of hard luck -- how many one- and two-run losses did he have?

It's an interesting statistic, but without context, I don't know if it's useful.

[DoubleX]

I'm not disputing Bert's qualifications -- he's plainly the best pitcher not inducted -- but I do have a question about this stat: Are those percentages of one- and two-run losses terribly different from those of other pitchers? How many one-run losses did Robin Roberts have? Fergie Jenkins? Heck, Walter Johnson pitched in a lot of hard luck -- how many one- and two-run losses did he have?

It's an interesting statistic, but without context, I don't know if it's useful.

That's a good question. Where could we find that information? Jenkins and Roberts are good examples to mention because their win/loss totals are pretty similar to Blyleven's and they probably both suffered from hard luck.

Here's a look at some statistics comparing the three players. After looking at these, maybe someone can tell me why Jenkins and Roberts are hall of famers and why Blyleven struggles so much?

Blyleven Jenkins Roberts Winner
ERA 3.31 3.34 3.41 Blyleven
ERA+ +118 +115 +113 Blyleven
Peak ERA+ +158 +143 +152 Blyleven
Ks 3701 3192 2357 Blyleven
Wins 287 284 286 Blyleven
Shutouts 60 49 45 Blyleven
Innings 4970 4500.7 4688.7 Blyleven

Bert has an advantage over Jenkins in Roberts in every category (some more than others). He was better over the length of his career, and he was better at his best. Jenkins and Roberts may have also played for some poor teams and had more losses and a winning percentage inordinate to how good they were, but at least their bad luck ended when their playing career ended - they got into voted into the hall, Bert is still a victim of bad luck.

[abacab]

XX, your table is a real eye opener for me, as I had Blyleven barely in my top 100, Jenkins in the 40s, and Roberts on my ballot. I'll be doing some shuffling.

It looks like the problem is that there are so many of Blyleven's comtemporaries that have similar records. The HoF might be going by the logic that if they put him in, they also have to put all these guys in:

Jim Kaat
ERA: 3.45
ERA+: 107
Peak ERA+: 156
Ks: 2461
Wins: 283
Shutouts: 31
Innings: 4530

Tommy John
ERA: 3.34
ERA+: 111
Peak ERA+: 154
Ks: 2245
Wins: 288
Shutouts: 46
Innings: 4710

Blyleven is better... but it's not obvious, and requires a closer look than I suspect most voters take. Then there's the matter of Blyleven's HoF contemporaries, many of whom are similar to Bert but just a little better:

Gaylord Perry
ERA: 3.11
ERA+: 117
Peak ERA+: 168
Ks: 3534
Wins: 314
Shutouts: 53
Innings: 5350

Don Sutton
ERA: 3.26
ERA+: 108
Peak ERA+: 161
Ks: 3574
Wins: 324
Shutouts: 58
Innings: 5282

Phil Niekro
ERA: 3.35
ERA+: 115
Peak ERA+: 177
Ks: 3342
Wins: 318
Shutouts: 45
Innings: 5404

Blyleven was probably better than Sutton, probably not as good as Niekro or Perry. They're all bunched together. Jenkins is in here too.

So where do you draw the line? How many of these 1965-1985 era, long-career, rarely-dominant-but-very-good-for-a-long-time pitchers do we want in? Is there something about the game at this time that made it easier for above-average pitchers to go on forever, racking up the counting stats until they become top Hall candidates? Do they all belong? Do any of them belong? If Blyleven is a HoFer, should John and Kaat also be in? If Blyleven isn't a HoFer, did the Hall make mistakes with Niekro and Sutton and Jenkins?

[Brad Harris]

So where do you draw the line? How many of these 1965-1985 era, long-career, rarely-dominant-but-very-good-for-a-long-time pitchers do we want in? Is there something about the game at this time that made it easier for above-average pitchers to go on forever, racking up the counting stats until they become top Hall candidates? Do they all belong? Do any of them belong? If Blyleven is a HoFer, should John and Kaat also be in? If Blyleven isn't a HoFer, did the Hall make mistakes with Niekro and Sutton and Jenkins?

In light of the fact that we're only discussing Blyleven's candidacy at the moment....

(1) In terms of whether or not the BBWAA should elect Blyleven, he's demonstrably better than any other starting pitcher presently on the ballot. So any voter who would put a vote down for Jack Morris, Tommy John, etc. should first make room on his ballot for Bert Blyleven.

(2) I think Blyleven's candidacy is more obviously qualified for the Hall than those of the Veterans Committee candidates (Kaat, Mays, Caruthers, Mullane, etc.) In terms of "why hasn't Blyleven been elected yet", however, this is a moot point. He's not competing with these players for election. He's competing with Morris, John, etc.

(3) Consequently, I am choosing to draw the line below Blyleven. How far below is a question that I haven't considered in full because my present concern is seeing Blyleven elected. Once his omission from Cooperstown is corrected, I can concentrate my energies on a less worthy cause.

(4) I agree that Don Sutton is the least great of the Niekro-Perry-Sutton trioka and I think one could make a pretty fair case that Blyleven was at least as good as the worst of those three. I think that Niekro, Perry and Blyleven were pitchers whose career stats were products of greatness and not the other way around. I believe that Sutton, not Blyleven, belongs in the Kaat-John group (where they were never great, just pitched forever.)

(5) When Niekro, Perry and Sutton were elected, I thought the Hall was making mistakes. I was wrong. I understand (now) that those selections are well in line with the Hall's historical standards for starting pitchers. In accordance, Blyleven fits well within the historically acceptable field of accomplishment the Hall has required of its inductees. The reason that Blyleven has not yet been elected is because the voters are raising the standards of election above what they've been in the past. Anyone who's read The Politics of Glory (or who has taken any college-level economics course) should know what this will lead to and understand why its important to correct it now before it gets out of hand.

(6) Blyleven is one of the last of his breed - the 4-man rotation workhorses - but far from being merely a product of his generation, Blyleven was a legitimate staff ace who fashioned a great career. Furthermore, Blyleven wasn't blessed with even better numbers by pitching a large chunk of his career in the 1960s (as so many of his contemporary stars did).

(7) Blyleven's election might assist the candidacies of Jim Kaat or Tommy John, but it certainly should be the basis for their election. (Sad if they have little else to stand on.) However, it's a moot point to argue for those (lesser) candidates when Blyleven is still receiving scant support.

(8) Finally - it's about time, eh? - anyone who wishes to support Blyleven this winter should contact your local BBWAA members with your best argument and encourage them to vote for Blyleven in December.

[DoubleX]

XX, your table is a real eye opener for me, as I had Blyleven barely in my top 100, Jenkins in the 40s, and Roberts on my ballot. I'll be doing some shuffling.

It looks like the problem is that there are so many of Blyleven's comtemporaries that have similar records. The HoF might be going by the logic that if they put him in, they also have to put all these guys in:

I noted in my first post here that I believe one of the major things holding Blyleven back is that he was being lumped in with Tommy John, Jim Kaat, and then Jack Morris. All great pitchers, but Blyleven was clearly the best of this bunch, it's just that the voters refused to look past win totals to see how much better Bert really was. But I take optimism in the fact that Bert finally distanced himself from the other guys last year, by climbing over 30%, while the other three were all still bunched in the low-mid 20's (where Bert used to be with them). So it means that Bert is beginning to stand out, and the more he stands out, the more new voters will notice and consider him. Plus Kaat is no longer on the ballot starting this year, so Bert might be able to take some of his votes. I expect him to top 40% this year, and that should give him at least a fighting chance for the rest of his time.

Also, I just thought I'd throw in that Bert's ERA+ is also better than another of his contemporaries, Nolan Ryan (+118 to +112). Ryan also only had one more shutout (61 to 60) than Blylven despite starting in an extra 90 games. Of course, Nolan has all the K's and No Hitters, and I would definitely rather have him on my team, but this should show just how close Blyleven is.

[DoubleX]

(8) Finally - it's about time, eh? - anyone who wishes to support Blyleven this winter should contact your local BBWAA members with your best argument and encourage them to vote for Blyleven in December.

That's a great idea, like contacting our congressmen. Where can I find a list of the BBWAA members? Thanks.

[abacab]

I agree with all of Chancellor's points except....


Consequently, I am choosing to draw the line below Blyleven. How far below is a question that I haven't considered in full because my present concern is seeing Blyleven elected. Once his omission from Cooperstown is corrected, I can concentrate my energies on a less worthy cause.

The points made in this thread in Blyleven's favor revolve around the fact that his career is very similar to a number of Hall of Fame pitchers. Well, I think it's equally relevant that there are also are many pitchers with similar careers that are not Hall of Famers. To really support Blyleven as a candidate, I have to be completely sure of where the line is, and that Blyleven is on the right side. At this point I'm convinced that, while Blyleven is deserving, there is nothing about his record that screams out that he is being horribly wronged either. (Unlike that Cubs third baseman that everybody keeps going on about.) I guess what I'm saying is, he probably should get in, but I don't see what the huge fuss is about that he isn't.

[mikey_s]

Bly shoul be in.

Why he isn't..........

The ONLY things going against him as far as I can see is that he was just sooooo consistent.

Jenkins had his run of 20 game seasons that people remembered wheras Bly just plodded along consistently finishing in the top 10 in most categories (IP, Ks......)

IF he had played on a different team he would have 320-380 wins.....

[DoubleX]

At this point I'm convinced that, while Blyleven is deserving, there is nothing about his record that screams out that he is being horribly wronged either. (Unlike that Cubs third baseman that everybody keeps going on about.) I guess what I'm saying is, he probably should get in, but I don't see what the huge fuss is about that he isn't.

Put yourself in Bert's (or Santo's) shoes. How would you feel if for 20+ years you had a great career that never got the recognition it deserved and suffered tons of close and painful defeats because your team couldn't support your talent enough? Meanwhile, several of your contemporaries with similar abilities are getting more praise and recognition because of what team they play for. You are every bit just as good as these guys, and better than some, yet you go overlooked while they are rewarded with more wins, all-star games, and adulation. But then you retire, thinking that in retrospect, people will be able to see just how good you were compared your contemporaries. But wait, just like during your career, people are overlooking how good you are while rewarding the same people who overshadowed you during your career. These people are now in the hall of fame and you're not, but you were just as good as them and if not better. Now is that fair? Do you feel ok with this situation like it isn't a big deal? I'm sure it's a big deal to Bert and his family and even his former teammates. If Bert was originally signed by a different team, he'd likely already be in the hall. If someone is as good and even better than some of their contemporaries in the hall, it's only fair to let them in and not disrespect them by leaving them on the outside. He may not have been among the elite of all-time, but if his contemporaries of equal talent are in, than Bert deserves to be in, and he doesn't deserve to be slighted anymore. The line can be drawn at someone below Bert's skill, but it's obvious that Bert's line is already considered hall of fame quality by the inclusion of the likes of Perry, Niekro, Sutton, Jenkins, Roberts, and others. So it's only fair to include Bert as part of that line - it's obvious that the hall would not be compromising it's integrity in the least to have Bert as member, so why continue to hurt and disrespect Bert as a human being by denying him to something that he's earned by the standards set for some of his lesser contemporaries? Admitting Bert hurts no one and in fact gives Bert his just do - leaving Bert out in fact does hurt someone, Bert Blyleven, and it's not fair.

[Brooklyn]

Originally posted by mikey_s

IF he had played on a different team he would have 320-380 wins.....

That is pushing it a little far. I don't know where the notion of Blyleven playing on poor teams his whole career comes from. Here are the W/L records of the teams he played on throughout his career:

Year Team W L
1970 Min 98 64
1971 Min 78 82
1972 Min 77 77
1973 Min 86 76
1974 Min 81 81
1975 Min 78 81
1976 Min 85 77
1976 Tex 77 85
1977 Tex 92 70
1978 Pitt 86 75
1979 Pitt 95 67
1980 Pitt 83 79
1981 Cle 50 53
1982 Cle 74 88
1983 Cle 73 89
1984 Cle 81 81
1985 Cle 69 93
1985 Min 73 89
1986 Min 72 90
1987 Min 79 83
1988 Min 90 72
1989 Cal 92 70
1990 Cal 79 83
1991 Cal 81 81

Simply averaging the team records in 1976 and 1985 and his teams were 1777-1714 over his career, or a 51% winning percentage. Pulling out his 287-250 lifetime record, and his teams were 1490-1464, still above .500. The fact is that he played on decent teams throughout his career. His teams did range from poor is some years to very good in others, but I just don't buy the argument that he was a hard luck pitcher.

I have to agree with abacab, that I don't see what the big fuss is about. He was a consistently above average pitcher for a long time, but never the best pitcher in the league at any time. I'd take him on my team, but as a number 2 or 3 started - if he's the number 1 starter, my team is in trouble. He may very well be the best pitcher not in the Hall, but someone has to be the best not in. I'm not sure if I'd draw my line above him or below him, but I just can't get excited about him not being in the Hall. Yes there are very similar pitchers to him in the Hall, and also very similar pitchers to him out of the Hall, any time you draw a line it is going to be a little blurred, you will never get a consensus. I definitely don't agree that all the pitchers in the Hall should in fact be there, but I don't like the argument that a pitcher should get in because others are already in - you can't fix one mistake by adding another.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Why are Bert Blyleven's feelings more important that Jim Rice's or Bruce Sutter's? Is he a valid candidate? Certainly. Is he that far ahead of everyone else not elected? I'm not so certain.
Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro and Fergie Jenkins didn't exactly appear on winning teams throughout their career, either. None of them even got to the World Series, something Blyleven did. I'm not so certain you can blame the teams he was on for his career output,since the above three kind of dispute that argument.

Blyeven was a very good pitcher. I would even go so far as to endorse him for HOF membership. But, outside of that curveball, what did he have that made him a great pitcher? He never had the standout seasons that Jenkins, Perry or Niekro had. Those guys were regarded as among the best at certain points in their career. I don't remember Blyleven really regarded as such during his career. You can look at his year-to-year stats all you'd like. When he actually played, he was highly regarded, but not in the front-line of conversation. He was a strong part of any staff, but not an absolute ace.
Blyleven, to me, is on par with Sutton. Which makes him worthy in my book. Wrong as it may be, Sutton passed the magical 300 win mark, while Blyleven did not. That is the main distinction between the two.

The best thing about the VC in regards to this is most of the people currently voting are his contemporaries, something that cannot be said of past VC elections. The burden of research won't be as heavy on the VC if, and I say if, not when, Blyleven takes that long for election, and he probably will make it by that point. I'm not party to the complaints that the current VC is too narrow-minded to vote on anybody. They've had all of one election under their belts. It is too early to make that determination.

Not electing Blyleven yet. A mistake. Sure. A tragedy. No.

[DoubleX]

If admitting players such as Sutton, Niekro, Perry, and others to the hall was a mistake, why should Bert be punished for that? A precedent (one or two might be a mistake, but several is a precedent) has been set that pitchers of that caliber are worthy of the hall of fame, so it's unfair to deny anyone of the same quality, especially a contemporary, entrance to the hall. Outside of Santo, I don't know if there is another player who is eligible but not in the hall that fits a precedent for hall members as well as Blyleven does.

Furthermore, Bert had more K's, more shutouts, and a lower ERA relative to the league than hall of famers such as Sutton, Niekro, Perry, Jenkins, Roberts, Pud Galvin, Mickey Welch, Red Ruffing, Chief Bender, Eppa Rixey, Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines, Rube Marquad, Jack Chesbro, Early Wynn, Ted Lyons, Jim Bunning, and Catfish Hunter. Blyleven even has a lower ERA relative to league than the likes of Warren Spahn, Nolan Ryan, and Steve Carlton, the latter two being the only two guys ahead of Blyleven in K's when he retired (Bert also had more shutouts than Carlton and one less in 90 less stars than Ryan). And Blyleven didn't benefit at all from the pitching happy 60's like many of these players did. Bert obviously is at least as qualified as a number of pitchers in the hall of fame, not just the mistake selections. The biggest mark against him is his won/loss record and not getting to the superficial mark of 300 wins (no way someone like Don Sutton is in without 300 wins).

Even though Bert played for some quality teams, he still is a hard-luck case. In a few of my earlier posts I mentioned that nearly 30% of Bert's losses were by 1 run or less, and that 115 of his 250 losses were by 2 runs or less. He had several years with double-digit no decisions and eight years with 14+ losses. His yearly records and career record are not in line with how low his ERA was for most of his career (at or under 3.03 eleven times) and with how many batters he struck out (8 times striking out over 200). Plus the guy threw 60 shutouts! There is no reason, other than hard-luck that Bert did not reach 300 wins and suffered 250 losses. His teams may have been decent, just not often enough on Bert's day on the mound. He pitched well enough that he should be way beyond 300 wins, but between all the no-decisions and amazing amount of 1 and 2 run losses, Bert was denied the 300 wins that would make these conversations moot - that's bad luck rather than for a lack of trying.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Let's make this simple. Who among us does not think Blyleven is HOF worthy? Please state a full case without using your own personal standards that go against the actual HOF's standards. They're the ones doing the elections, so you have to go by the reality of the situation, not what you dream what the HOF should be.

[Brad Harris]

My point was that Blyleven is the most deserving starting pitcher on the BBWAA ballot (and will remain such until he is either elected, drops off or certain active pitchers - Clemens, Johnson, Maddux - become eligible.)

[Brooklyn]

In a few of my earlier posts I mentioned that nearly 30% of Bert's losses were by 1 run or less, and that 115 of his 250 losses were by 2 runs or less

While these numbers sound like a lot, are they? Someone in an earlier post asked how this compared to other pitchers and we haven't seen an answer yet. I'll ask the questions a different way - does anyone know what percentage of all games are decided by 1 or 2 runs?

As stated earlier, I wouldn't lose sleep over Blyleven getting in and agree that it can be argued that he is on par with the bottom tier of the Hall, but also can't get too excited about him either. I would like to get away from the "hard luck" argument without better statisitics. Losing by 1 or 2 runs does not impress me - a pitcher can lose every game 6-5 or 9-7 and be losing by 1 or 2 runs, but that wouldn't be considered "hard luck". We also don't know how many "lucky" wins he got - how many times did he give up, for example, 6 runs and still get the win? To really call him "hard luck", I'l need to know more about his games - what his record was when he gave up 0 runs, 1 run, 2 runs, etc..., and how that compares to other pitchers.

[DoubleX]

While these numbers sound like a lot, are they? Someone in an earlier post asked how this compared to other pitchers and we haven't seen an answer yet. I'll ask the questions a different way - does anyone know what percentage of all games are decided by 1 or 2 runs?

As stated earlier, I wouldn't lose sleep over Blyleven getting in and agree that it can be argued that he is on par with the bottom tier of the Hall, but also can't get too excited about him either. I would like to get away from the "hard luck" argument without better statisitics. Losing by 1 or 2 runs does not impress me - a pitcher can lose every game 6-5 or 9-7 and be losing by 1 or 2 runs, but that wouldn't be considered "hard luck". We also don't know how many "lucky" wins he got - how many times did he give up, for example, 6 runs and still get the win? To really call him "hard luck", I'l need to know more about his games - what his record was when he gave up 0 runs, 1 run, 2 runs, etc..., and how that compares to other pitchers.

Well just by looking at his ERA, which was well under 3 for half of his career, we know that Bert wasn't losing many games 7-6 or 5-4. His 60 career shutouts, good for 9th all-time, should evidence that Bert was extremely capable of keeping the opposing team to only a few runs. If he was able to shut out teams so much, how much more often do you think he held teams to under three runs (though his ERA suggests almost all the time until his twilight). See that's my point - Bert's win/loss totals are inordinate with how low his ERA was for much of his career. He wasn't giving up many runs and was keeping his team in games, they just weren't getting the job done when he was on the mound. Plus Bert averaged over 7 innings a start, so he was pitching late into the games and not losing close games on account of a shoddy bullpen.

I think Bert's best year is a good example of how unlucky he was. In his best season, 1973, Bert won 20 games, posted a 2.52 ERA, which was 58% better than the league, and he struck out 258 batters. Seems like a pretty darn good season by any measure, yet he still lost a whopping 17 games! Now it would be one thing if this was isolated, but it's not. Bert lost double digit games 15 times in his career, and lost 14-17 games in eight of those years including fout times losing 17 games, despite having an ERA that was often at least 30% better than the league and in the league's top 10 (Bert had 10 top 10 ERA finishes). Someone with such a good ERA who is pitching late into most games and striking out a ton of batters, should not be losing 12-15 games year after year after year, but he did and I can't find any explanation other than hard luck.

As for other pitchers records in one or two run games, I'm not sure how to find that since I'm using the Blyleven stats from a USA Today article. But given Bert's low ERA for much of his career, his very high total of shutouts, and the fact he pitched late into games, I'm guessing that there would be few if any pitchers that come close or surpass Blyleven's total of 115 losses in two runs or less games.

[Brad Harris]

Taking Blyleven's case/likelihood of induction from a different angle.

There will be some very notable starting pitchers appearing on the BBWAA ballot between now and the time Clemens/Johnson/Maddux make their appearances. Blyleven's best chance for election - obviously - is before that troika retires.

Specifically, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen and Dwight Gooden will be appearing on the ballot in the near future. Does anyone feel that one or more of these pitchers has a stronger case for election than Bert Blyleven?

I'm not asking whether or not any of these guys are Hall-worthy themselves per se, just whether any of them are more worthy than Blyleven?

(Secondary Question: What about comparison between those newcomers and the other two existing pitchers, Jack Morris and Tommy John?)

[leecemark]

--Its getting past my bed time so I'll give the quick version here. All three of the pitchers coming onto the ballot were better pitchers at their best than Blyleven. None of them had as good a career and none of them are as worthy a Hall of Fame candidate as Blyleven. I'm not especially enthused about Blyleven, but if I had to pick one of the four..
--Of the holdovers, John was also better at his best than Blyleven and had a better career than any of the newcomers. I think his case for the Hall is pretty close to Blyleven's. Some of his numbers are better and some worse. Maybe its just me, but I think but having the surgery named after him adds to his legacy. If I was going to vote for Blyleven, I'd have to vote for John as well.
--Morris is the only one of these pitchers I have any emotional attachment to. He was the ace of my team for many years and I loved watching him pitch. Just an enormously competitive battler. It may be that his inability to keep that under control is what is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. In 1987 the Tigers made the playoffs for the last time and Morris contributed 18 wins, 266 IP and a 126 ERA+ - more or less the same season he had turned in since joining the rotation 9 years previously. Morris turned 30 in July of that season, he was in great health and there was no reason to believe he wouldn't have half a dozen more such seasons.
--However, the Tigers were a notoriously cheap organization and not committed to winning. They had let Lance Parrish leave as a free agent after 1986 and followed up by letting Kirk Gibson leave after 1987. Gibson and Morris were the heart and soul of the team and Jack was very outspoken about how he felt about the team, demanding to be traded. That request wasn't granted and Morris didn't seem to have the same fire on the mound the next season (15-13 97 ERA+). He declared for free agency the next year, but was caught up in the collusion situation and received no offers. He was stuck in Detroit two additional seasons where he frankly didn't appear to care much, posting a combined record of 21-32 with a 83 ERA+.
--Freed the next season, Morris proved he could still pitch at his old level by winning 18 and posting a 124 ERA+ in leading Minnesota to a World Series championship. He followed that the next year by winning 21 for the Toronto World champs.
--I'm not saying Morris should be given credit for sulking through the better part of three seasons. I'm just saying that had the Tigers stayed competiive or had Morris not been trapped in that situation he would have won around 20 more games, had an ERA+ 10-15 points higher and he would be in the Hall of Fame. Randy Johnson acted exactly the same way in Seattle in 1998, but the Mariners traded him away in mid-season and he returned to form. Morris wasn't as good as Johnson, but given something close to his career norms for 1988-90 his career numbers and post season heroics would have almost certainly gotten him into the Hall.
--Guess it wasn't that quick after all.

[ElHalo]

Um, yes, I do think one of them has a better case than Blyleven.

Hersheiser's got that crazy scoreless innings streak, but beyond that, is pretty lacking in Hall credentials.

Saberhagen had a couple of tremenous seasons, far better than Blyleven ever did, but was wildly uneven.

The Doctor, though... his career OPS is lower than Blyleven's. His career W's and IP are lower than Blyleven's. His career K's are lower than Blyleven's.

But his 1985 season is probably the best season that anybody had between Walter Johnson's 1913 season and Pedro's 1999-2000 seasons. And yes, I mean that. And yes, that's a very long time.

Jack Chesbro is in the Hall on the basis of one great season. Gooden isn't quite as fortunate. But...

Between 1986 and 1990 (which does NOT include Doc's great season), he had a better winning percentage than Roger Clemens. He was the youngest pitcher ever to reach 100 wins. His 1984 season was probably the best by a teenager in baseball history. His 1986 season was almost as good. He had just as many career 20 win seasons as Blyleven, he had just as many career WHIP championships as Blyleven, and had more K championships and ERA championships than Blyleven.

The Hall of Fame is meant to honor the truly great players. Blyleven was never truly great. Doc Gooden was. For a brief moment in the mid 80's, the Doctor burned brighter than the sun.

I don't think that Gooden deserves to be in the Hall. But he deserves it more than Bert.

[dgarza]

As cases go:

Bert has the best case/chance

There's a slight gap, and then come probably
Tommy John
&
Jack Morris
in that order

There's a another gap, and then comes
Gooden
I think his case/chase lies in the future/VC, because, ironically, his legacies are too much in the memory. He needs to disappear and then come back in another light, viewed by slightly different eyes.

Oral and Bret will not hold any sway.

[2Chance]

Just a couple notes....Mark, that might be my favorite Jack Morris post. Very good & to the point. As you say, his loss of fire for those three years (88-90) is undoubtedly what will keep him out of the HoF. It could also be noted that Kirk Gibson had the wind knocked out of his sails with that off-season's collusion debacle, and when you have a flat Gibson and a flat Morris, there's no reason to get enthused about coming to the ballpark.

Nevertheless, when people saw Jack Morris pitching at his best, they knew they were looking at a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. It's just too bad he had no team around him and went into such a funk.

I never thought that way about watching Tommy John, but looking over his career it's amazing what he did accomplish. The surgery which bears his name is what makes him most famous. If he does have a shot at the Hall, name recognition from this will be as big a factor as anything.

• 288 Wins - 3 time 20-game winner
• 10 times top ten in Win %
• 6 times top 5 in ERA
• 4 time All Star
• 3 times lead the league in Shutouts, and four other times finished in the top ten.

Now, I wouldn’t try to make a HoF case based on these stats, but the man had quite a career, pitched in “money” games for the biggest teams and finished his career with an ERA+ of 111 even though he was still pitching at the age of 46.

If anybody does want to make a case for Tommy John, they should be prepared to answer for these issues:

• His average season, no matter how long he pitched, was an unspectacular 13-10.

• Black Ink, Grey Ink, and HOF Standards scores are woefully lacking. Only his HOF Monitor scores are in range of other alumni. The Monitor scores are propped up by both longevity and the good fortune to play for winning Dodgers and Yankees teams.

• In 26 years, he only made the All Star team four times?

• A Hall-type pitcher should be finishing higher in the big-time stats more often than he does. (For this, here’s a partial answer: Tommy was a sinkerballer whose forte was the groundout, so his K totals naturally didn’t reach the magic number 3,000 -- although 2245 is nothing to sneeze at.)

I’d look forward to seeing a fan of his build a real case. Until then, this might be as close as we get.

[chisoxrule]

Do you think Bert Blyleven should be in the HOF? Discuss.

I think he definately should. Here's some of his numbers to think about:

287 wins with teams like the Twins, Rangers, and Indians of the 1970s and mid-80s.

74 one-run game losses

41 two-run game losses

Ranks...

5th in career strikeouts
9th in career shutouts
8th in career games started
13th in career innings pitched

postseason stats

5-1, 2.47 ERA

[csh19792001]

Do you think Bert Blyleven should be in the HOF? Discuss.


Absolutely. :o

[efin98]

If the Hall of Fame voters put Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, or Tom Glavine into the Hall of Fame there is no reason whatsoever that Blyleven shouldn't be there.

[DoubleX]

Blyleven should definitely be in: He compares very favorably to several pitchers already in the Hall, including contemporaries to Blyleven such as: Fergie Jenkins, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, and even the great Nolan Ryan. I'd go as far to say that of that group, only Ryan might be clearly better than Blyleven. You look at top 5 and top 10 ERA finishes, and top 5 and top 10 ERA+ finishes, and Blyleven blows all of those guys out of the water. Moreover, Blyleven lost well over 100 games by 2 runs or less. He was a victim of paltry run support more often than not, and the fact that he has 60 shutouts and several 1 hitters and a no hitter is testament to the fact hat Blyleven was very capable of keeping the games low scoring - he just lost lots and lots of games like 2-1 and 1-0. If he was a bit luckier, he would have easily picked up those 13 wins that kept him from 300 and the whole debate around his Hall of Fame status would thus be moot - those 13 extra wins would have got him in. He was certainly good enough to have won 13 more games, and probably should have won about 320-330 for his career. He was just unlucky, and that run of bad luck has continued to haunt him by keeping him out of the Hall.

[jalbright]

Here's what I wrote about him in noting he made my BBF HOF ballot:

If we eliminate those pitchers with careers starting before 1900 (when pitchers pitched a lot more innings due to the shorter pitching distance), Blyleven is tied for 11th in career win shares among pitchers with Robin Roberts. All the others are in Cooperstown and the BBF HOF. His black ink score is a little below average, but his gray ink is well above the average HOF pitcher's 185, as he attained 239 points there. He was in the top five in ERA seven times, in the top five in strikeouts 10 times, and led the league in shutouts three times. He was, in short, a high quality pitcher for a long period of time, and that is HOF material in my book.

Jim Albright

[Bluesteve32]

He pitched for some mediocre teams and would have had more wins.

[BoofBonser26]

Wow...look at the poll results so far-20 "yays", no "nays". What are the odds he gets any significant showing of votes next year, what with three "locks" (Gwynn, Ripken...and probably McGwire) already on the ballot?

[DoubleX]

Wow...look at the poll results so far-20 "yays", no "nays". What are the odds he gets any significant showing of votes next year, what with three "locks" (Gwynn, Ripken...and probably McGwire) already on the ballot?

You've jumped the gun a little, the Big Three are two elections off. This coming year has a really weak new class headed by Albert Belle, Will Clark, Orel Hershiser, and Dwight Gooden. Of those, only Albert Belle might one day have a chance to get in (though I think Clark will be aided by the whole steroids thing and get more support than people might expect).

Next year will be interesting, given the very weak new class and how the steroids scandals might effect voting. Both Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage have made good strides in recent years and look to be the most likely to get in next year (if anyone). Andre Dawson and Jim Rice should benefit from the weak class and the steroids miess, and might both get close or even in. As for Blyleven, he's steadily been rising the past few years and I think his support might cross the 50% line this year. That would definitely be a very good indicator for his eventual election.

[BoofBonser26]

You've jumped the gun a little, the Big Three are two elections off.
Oops...thanks! :o

[Brad Harris]

John Wetteland is another candidate not unlikely to surpass 5% of the total votes in 2006.

2007 will see a plethora - "Jeffe, do you know what a plethora is?" - of interesting candidates in addition to "the Big Three." Eric Davis, Jose Canseco, Tony Fernandez, Bret Saberhagen and Harold Baines are among those who become eligible alongside Gwynn, Big Mac and Ripken.

[leecemark]

--I'd say none of those players had a prayer of actual induction, but most would have stuck around the ballot a few years without the stiff competition. I suspect they will be one and done in this field.
--The exception might be Canseco, who was perhaps seen his stock rise by being the "honest juicer". Personally, I think his actions and relevations are reprehensible and self-serving, but at least 5% of the voters may disagree.

[Appling]

If Palmeiro was a possible HOF first-ballot player (prior to the steroids revelation) how can it be that Bert was still excluded? Is reaching the magic number (300 wins for a pitcher, 3000 hits for a position player) that important?

Bert is just a few wins short of the magic number: 287 career wins. And he is #3 among HOF-eligible pitchers in career strikeouts with 3701. Of the ten HOF-eligible pitchers with more than 3000 career strikeouts, he is the only one not already in the Hall. (Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson are still active, so they are not yet HOF-eligible.)

Bert would have a lot more blank ink if he hadn't had to compete with Nolan Ryan in the strikeout count or Jim Palmer and Catfish Hunter for Wins and ERA titles.

[efin98]

If Palmeiro was a possible HOF first-ballot player (prior to the steroids revelation) how can it be that Bert was still excluded? Is reaching the magic number (300 wins for a pitcher, 3000 hits for a position player) that important?

The steroid saga will probably do him more justice than most other candidates, but it will likely not be enough. Such a shame, a real tragedy...

Bert is just a few wins short of the magic number: 287 career wins. And he is #3 among HOF-eligible pitchers in career strikeouts with 3701. Of the ten HOF-eligible pitchers with more than 3000 career strikeouts, he is the only one not already in the Hall. (Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson are still active, so they are not yet HOF-eligible.)

You forgot the newest member of that club(as of a few weeks ago), Greg Maddux.

[Brooklyn]

As the lone dissenter to date, I feel oblilgated to post.

To be clear, I wouldn't lose sleep over him getting in. I think he is on par with the bottom of the Hall, but I don't think that is enough. This forum has overwhelming support for him, and I just can't get too excited about him.

My biggest problem with Blyleven is that he was never the premier pitcher of his era. You can name 5 better (at least) starting pitchers in mlb at any time that he was in the league. He only received Cy Young votes 4 times, never finishing higher than 3rd.

If the Hall of Fame voters put Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, or Tom Glavine into the Hall of Fame there is no reason whatsoever that Blyleven shouldn't be there.

Schilling was one of the best pitchers in baseball for the first five years of the 2000's, finishing with 3 second place Cy Young's, and would have one if not for Randy Johson. Glavine has 2 Cy's, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. Smoltz has a CY. I'd put all three of these pitchers in ahead of Blyleven, they were all the best or near the best pitchers in their league for a period of time. Blyleven never was.


He pitched for some mediocre teams and would have had more wins.

His teams were not as bad as you think. Here is a list of all the teams he played with (first numbers are the team W/L, second are Blyleven's):

Year Team W L W L GS %
1970 Min 98 64 60% 10 9 25 53%
1971 Min 78 82 49% 16 15 38 52%
1972 Min 77 77 50% 17 17 38 50%
1973 Min 86 76 53% 20 17 40 54%
1974 Min 81 81 50% 17 17 37 50%
1975 Min 78 81 49% 15 10 35 60%
1976 Min 85 77 52% 4 5 12 44%
1976 Tex 77 85 48% 9 11 14 45%
1977 Tex 92 70 57% 14 12 30 54%
1978 Pitt 86 75 53% 14 10 34 58%
1979 Pitt 95 67 59% 12 5 37 71%
1980 Pitt 83 79 51% 8 13 32 38%
1981 Cle 50 53 49% 11 7 20 61%
1982 Cle 74 88 46% 2 2 4 50%
1983 Cle 73 89 45% 7 10 24 41%
1984 Cle 81 81 50% 19 7 32 73%
1985 Cle 69 93 43% 9 11 23 45%
1985 Min 73 89 45% 8 5 14 62%
1986 Min 72 90 44% 17 14 36 55%
1987 Min 79 83 49% 15 12 37 56%
1988 Min 90 72 56% 10 17 33 37%
1989 Cal 92 70 57% 17 5 33 77%
1990 Cal 79 83 49% 8 7 23 53%
1991 Cal 81 81 50% 8 12 24 40%

If you assume he played 1/2 season with each team in 1976 and 1985 (for simplification, someone can do it based on trade date if they'd like), his teams had a record of 1777-1714. Backing out his 287-250, his teams were 1490-1464 on days he did not get a decision. Not the Yankees of the 50's, but I'm not sure how much more you could ask for then above .500 teams for his career. Looking at these stats further, he had a better WL% than his team 8 times, and a worse WL% then his team 14 times. It doesn't sound to me like his teams were bringing him down. Other than Nolan Ryan, he has the worst winning percentage of any player with > 275 career wins.

I view Blyleven as a good to very good pitcher who accumulated stats for a long period of time, but never quite crossing the HOF threshold. He has good counting stats, but his rate stats are not nearly as good.

He never lead the league in W, ERA, or WL%. He did lead the league once each in WHIP and strikeouts, and three times in shutouts. But he also lead the league in HR allowed twice, Earned runs allowed once, and losses once.

Blyleven to me is a borderline at best HOF candidate, and I think he just falls short.

[DoubleX]

As the lone dissenter to date, I feel oblilgated to post.

To be clear, I wouldn't lose sleep over him getting in. I think he is on par with the bottom of the Hall, but I don't think that is enough. This forum has overwhelming support for him, and I just can't get too excited about him.

My biggest problem with Blyleven is that he was never the premier pitcher of his era. You can name 5 better (at least) starting pitchers in mlb at any time that he was in the league. He only received Cy Young votes 4 times, never finishing higher than 3rd.



Schilling was one of the best pitchers in baseball for the first five years of the 2000's, finishing with 3 second place Cy Young's, and would have one if not for Randy Johson. Glavine has 2 Cy's, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. Smoltz has a CY. I'd put all three of these pitchers in ahead of Blyleven, they were all the best or near the best pitchers in their league for a period of time. Blyleven never was.




His teams were not as bad as you think. Here is a list of all the teams he played with (first numbers are the team W/L, second are Blyleven's):

Year Team W L W L GS %
1970 Min 98 64 60% 10 9 25 53%
1971 Min 78 82 49% 16 15 38 52%
1972 Min 77 77 50% 17 17 38 50%
1973 Min 86 76 53% 20 17 40 54%
1974 Min 81 81 50% 17 17 37 50%
1975 Min 78 81 49% 15 10 35 60%
1976 Min 85 77 52% 4 5 12 44%
1976 Tex 77 85 48% 9 11 14 45%
1977 Tex 92 70 57% 14 12 30 54%
1978 Pitt 86 75 53% 14 10 34 58%
1979 Pitt 95 67 59% 12 5 37 71%
1980 Pitt 83 79 51% 8 13 32 38%
1981 Cle 50 53 49% 11 7 20 61%
1982 Cle 74 88 46% 2 2 4 50%
1983 Cle 73 89 45% 7 10 24 41%
1984 Cle 81 81 50% 19 7 32 73%
1985 Cle 69 93 43% 9 11 23 45%
1985 Min 73 89 45% 8 5 14 62%
1986 Min 72 90 44% 17 14 36 55%
1987 Min 79 83 49% 15 12 37 56%
1988 Min 90 72 56% 10 17 33 37%
1989 Cal 92 70 57% 17 5 33 77%
1990 Cal 79 83 49% 8 7 23 53%
1991 Cal 81 81 50% 8 12 24 40%

If you assume he played 1/2 season with each team in 1976 and 1985 (for simplification, someone can do it based on trade date if they'd like), his teams had a record of 1777-1714. Backing out his 287-250, his teams were 1490-1464 on days he did not get a decision. Not the Yankees of the 50's, but I'm not sure how much more you could ask for then above .500 teams for his career. Looking at these stats further, he had a better WL% than his team 8 times, and a worse WL% then his team 14 times. It doesn't sound to me like his teams were bringing him down. Other than Nolan Ryan, he has the worst winning percentage of any player with > 275 career wins.

I view Blyleven as a good to very good pitcher who accumulated stats for a long period of time, but never quite crossing the HOF threshold. He has good counting stats, but his rate stats are not nearly as good.

He never lead the league in W, ERA, or WL%. He did lead the league once each in WHIP and strikeouts, and three times in shutouts. But he also lead the league in HR allowed twice, Earned runs allowed once, and losses once.

Blyleven to me is a borderline at best HOF candidate, and I think he just falls short.

You're right, Brooklyn. Blyleven's teams were not as bad as some people would lead you to believe. However, Blyleven individually was unlucky as his teams just happened to be bad on the days he pitched. He lost an astounding 75 games by 1 run, and 115 games by 2 runs or less! Given how low Blyleven's ERAs were in his prime, and how capable he was of throwing a shutout, it seems to me that Blyleven was losing an incredible amount of low scoring games, like 1-0, 2-1, 2-0. Think about that, 75 times he kept his team in the game and lost by a run! That's just bad luck. Almost any other pitcher would surely have found 13 wins in those 75 1-run losses and 115 2-run or less losses. Bert should have had well past 300 wins, his teams just weren't supporting him. His bad luck resulted in losses then and closed doors to the Hall of Fame now.

[leecemark]

--I'm not really sure that 75 one run losses is that unusual. Most baseball games are close and a fairly high percentage end up with a one run difference. Blyleven probably has a little higher percentage of one run losses than would be expected, but how much difference that makes in evaluating him I don't know.
--How many games did he when by 1 run? How many of his one run losses were of the 6-5 variety? Sure he was capable of throwing a shutout, but those games did end up in the win column for him. In the losses he gave up runs and I doubt a huge number of them were 0-1 decisions.
--For the record I voted yes on Blyleven here. He is better than MANY Hall of Fame pitchers and is probably the best modern pitcher, if not the best pitcher period, outside looking in. I'm just not sure that his record of close defeats is a good selling point. The classic response to that would be "he always pitched just good enough to lose".

[DoubleX]

I'm just not sure that his record of close defeats is a good selling point. The classic response to that would be "he always pitched just good enough to lose".

That is an essential argument to Blyleven's case. 115 2-run or 1-run losses is a large amount. The guy is just 13 wins short of 300. A luckier pitcher would likely have won 13 games somewhere in that 115. With 300 wins, Blyleven's case would be moot because he'd have that superficial number to put him in. The point is that he certainly was a 300 win quality pitcher, luck just wasn't on his side as much as it was say for Don Sutton. By pointing out Blyleven's bad luck I'm illustrating that he didn't reach 300 wins because he wasn't good enough, it was because he wasn't fortunate enough - a big difference.

[leecemark]

--Maybe thats true if you believe that a guy with 300 wins is significantly better than one with 287. I think thats a pretty meaningless distinction myself. Don Sutton got his 300 wins, but I'd rate Blyleven ahead of him no problem.

[DoubleX]

Here are some comparisons between Blyleven and his Hall of Fame peers (Nolan Ryan, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, and Catfish Hunter):

No. of Top 5 ERA Seasons
1) Blyleven: 7
2) Ryan: 5
3) Sutton: 4
4) Hunter, Niekro, Perry: 3
7) Jenkins: 0

No. of Top 10 ERA Seasons
1) Perry: 11
2) Blyleven: 10
3) Ryan, Sutton: 8
5) Niekro: 4
6) Hunter, Jenkins: 3

No. of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
1) Blyleven: 7
2) Ryan: 4
3) Hunter, Niekro, Sutton: 3
6) Jenkins, Perry: 2

No. of Top 10 ERA+ Seasons
1) Blyleven: 11
2) Perry: 10
3) Niekro, Ryan, Sutton: 7
6) Jenkins: 6
7) Hunter: 3

No. of 130 ERA+ (and greater) Seasons
1) Blyleven: 7
2) Niekro, Ryan, Perry: 4
5) Hunter, Sutton: 3
7) Jenkins: 2

Career ERA+
1) Blyleven: 118
2) Perry: 117
3) Jenkins, Niekro: 115
5) Ryan: 112
6) Sutton: 108
7) Hunter: 104

No. of Top 5 Strikeout Seasons
1) Ryan: 18
2) Blyleven: 13
3) Jenkins: 9
4) Perry: 7
5) Niekro: 6
6) Jenkins: 3
7) Hunter: 1

No. of Top 10 Strikeout Seasons
1) Ryan: 20
2) Blyleven: 15
3) Sutton: 13
4) Jenkins, Perry: 12
6) Hunter, Niekro: 7

Career Strikeouts
1) Ryan: 5714
2) Blyleven: 3701
3) Sutton: 3574
4) Perry: 3534
5) Niekro: 3342
6) Jenkins: 3192
7) Hunter: 2012

No. of Top 5 WHIP (H+BB per 9) Seasons
1) Sutton: 10
2) Blyleven: 7
3) Perry, Ryan: 6
5) Hunter, Jenkins, Niekro: 4

No. of Top 10 WHIP (H+BB per 9) Seasons
1) Sutton: 14
2) Jenkins: 13
3) Blyleven: 11
4) Perry: 10
5) Ryan: 9
6) Hunter: 6
7) Niekro: 5

Career Shutouts
1) Ryan: 61
2) Blyleven: 60
3) Sutton: 58
4) Perry: 53
5) Jenkins: 49
6) Niekro: 45
7) Hunter: 42

Career Complete Games
1) Perry: 303
2) Jenkins: 267
3) Niekro: 245
4) Blyleven: 242
5) Ryan: 222
6) Hunter: 181
7) Sutton: 178

No. of Top 5 IP Seasons
1) Perry: 10
2) Jenkins: 9
3) Niekro: 8
4) Blyleven: 6
5) Hunter: 4
6) Ryan, Sutton: 3

No. of Top 10 IP Seasons
1) Blyleven, Niekro, Perry: 11
4) Jenkins, Sutton: 10
6) Ryan: 9
7) Hunter: 6


No. of Categories Player is Ranked 1st Here
1) Blyleven: 6
2) Perry, Ryan: 4
4) Sutton: 2
5) Niekro: 1
6) Hunter, Jenkins: 0

No. of Categories Player is Ranked 1st or 2nd Here
1) Blyleven: 12
2) Perry, Ryan: 7
4) Jenkins: 3
5) Niekro, Sutton: 2
7)Hunter: 0

To me, this all shows that compared to his Hall of Fame contemporaries, Blyleven was arguably the best of the bunch (though I doubt I'd put him ahead of Ryan). I have no clue why Jenkins and Hunter are in the Hall and Blyleven is not since he is clearly the vastly superior pitcher to both, but as for the others (excepting Ryan), it's the 300 wins that makes the difference, even though Blyleven was the better pitcher and was better for longer. If the rest of these guys are in, there is no reason why Blyleven's career does not merit induction.

[DoubleX]

--Maybe thats true if you believe that a guy with 300 wins is significantly better than one with 287. I think thats a pretty meaningless distinction myself. Don Sutton got his 300 wins, but I'd rate Blyleven ahead of him no problem.

I don't necessarily believe that's true. 300 is that magic arbitrary number that gets a player elected, and my point is that Blyelven was plenty good enough to win 300 games, luck just wasn't on his side. The voters look at that arbitrary number, and my point is that Blyleven should have achieved that number if not for the inordinate amount of close losses he suffered. You echo my point when you mention Sutton. Blyleven was a much, MUCH better pitcher than Sutton. However, Sutton was a little luckier and pitched a little longer and reached that magic number. The voters only look at Sutton and his 300+ wins and think he's better than Blyleven - as evidenced by the fact that Sutton is in and Blyleven is not. So yeah, I agree with you that 300 wins is an arbitrary numbers and doesn't necessarily indicate a players skill over another player. However, that is the number that gets players elected, and my point is that Blyleven should have reached that number.

[leecemark]

--Jenkins is in because he was winning 20 games every year (and for not that good of teams) at his peak. Hunter was also winning 20 on a regular basis and coming up big in the post season (and had a catchy nickname). This may not have been correct but, having been around to catch most of the career of all these guys, I can assure you Blyleven was not perceived to be as good as any of them at any point in his career. He still isn't by the men doing the voting. Personally, I'd put him ahead of Hunter and Sutton, but behind Jenkins (although making a logical arguement for that may be a challenge), Ryan, Perry and Neikro.

[rockin500]

--Jenkins is in because he was winning 20 games every year (and for not that good of teams) at his peak. Hunter was also winning 20 on a regular basis and coming up big in the post season (and had a catchy nickname). This may not have been correct but, having been around to catch most of the career of all these guys, I can assure you Blyleven was not perceived to be as good as any of them at any point in his career. He still isn't by the men doing the voting. Personally, I'd put him ahead of Hunter and Sutton, but behind Jenkins (although making a logical arguement for that may be a challenge), Ryan, Perry and Neikro.

exactly. rightly or wrongly, 6 straight 20 win seasons just calls to the voters. plus the quirkiness of 3000K's, less than 1000 BB's helps as well.

and i would agree with your rankings on that group of pitchers.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As the lone dissenter to date, I feel oblilgated to post.

To be clear, I wouldn't lose sleep over him getting in. I think he is on par with the bottom of the Hall, but I don't think that is enough. This forum has overwhelming support for him, and I just can't get too excited about him.

My biggest problem with Blyleven is that he was never the premier pitcher of his era. You can name 5 better (at least) starting pitchers in mlb at any time that he was in the league. He only received Cy Young votes 4 times, never finishing higher than 3rd.



Schilling was one of the best pitchers in baseball for the first five years of the 2000's, finishing with 3 second place Cy Young's, and would have one if not for Randy Johson. Glavine has 2 Cy's, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. Smoltz has a CY. I'd put all three of these pitchers in ahead of Blyleven, they were all the best or near the best pitchers in their league for a period of time. Blyleven never was.




His teams were not as bad as you think. Here is a list of all the teams he played with (first numbers are the team W/L, second are Blyleven's):

Year Team W L W L GS %
1970 Min 98 64 60% 10 9 25 53%
1971 Min 78 82 49% 16 15 38 52%
1972 Min 77 77 50% 17 17 38 50%
1973 Min 86 76 53% 20 17 40 54%
1974 Min 81 81 50% 17 17 37 50%
1975 Min 78 81 49% 15 10 35 60%
1976 Min 85 77 52% 4 5 12 44%
1976 Tex 77 85 48% 9 11 14 45%
1977 Tex 92 70 57% 14 12 30 54%
1978 Pitt 86 75 53% 14 10 34 58%
1979 Pitt 95 67 59% 12 5 37 71%
1980 Pitt 83 79 51% 8 13 32 38%
1981 Cle 50 53 49% 11 7 20 61%
1982 Cle 74 88 46% 2 2 4 50%
1983 Cle 73 89 45% 7 10 24 41%
1984 Cle 81 81 50% 19 7 32 73%
1985 Cle 69 93 43% 9 11 23 45%
1985 Min 73 89 45% 8 5 14 62%
1986 Min 72 90 44% 17 14 36 55%
1987 Min 79 83 49% 15 12 37 56%
1988 Min 90 72 56% 10 17 33 37%
1989 Cal 92 70 57% 17 5 33 77%
1990 Cal 79 83 49% 8 7 23 53%
1991 Cal 81 81 50% 8 12 24 40%

If you assume he played 1/2 season with each team in 1976 and 1985 (for simplification, someone can do it based on trade date if they'd like), his teams had a record of 1777-1714. Backing out his 287-250, his teams were 1490-1464 on days he did not get a decision. Not the Yankees of the 50's, but I'm not sure how much more you could ask for then above .500 teams for his career. Looking at these stats further, he had a better WL% than his team 8 times, and a worse WL% then his team 14 times. It doesn't sound to me like his teams were bringing him down. Other than Nolan Ryan, he has the worst winning percentage of any player with > 275 career wins.

I view Blyleven as a good to very good pitcher who accumulated stats for a long period of time, but never quite crossing the HOF threshold. He has good counting stats, but his rate stats are not nearly as good.

He never lead the league in W, ERA, or WL%. He did lead the league once each in WHIP and strikeouts, and three times in shutouts. But he also lead the league in HR allowed twice, Earned runs allowed once, and losses once.

Blyleven to me is a borderline at best HOF candidate, and I think he just falls short.

You have a typo in you listing. The 1987 Twins won the World Series with an 85-77 record.

[catcher24]

Originally posted by DoubleXX:
300 is that magic arbitrary number that gets a player elected,

I think this is true to a large degree. It would have been very interesting to see what kind of support Jim Kaat received had he managed to reach 300 wins (finishing at 283). Not really an outstanding pitcher, but pretty good for a very long time. I'll wager that had he made it to 300 wins, he would get elected.

As for Blyleven, I feel he belongs in the HOF.

[DoubleX]

--Jenkins is in because he was winning 20 games every year (and for not that good of teams) at his peak. Hunter was also winning 20 on a regular basis and coming up big in the post season (and had a catchy nickname). This may not have been correct but, having been around to catch most of the career of all these guys, I can assure you Blyleven was not perceived to be as good as any of them at any point in his career. He still isn't by the men doing the voting. Personally, I'd put him ahead of Hunter and Sutton, but behind Jenkins (although making a logical arguement for that may be a challenge), Ryan, Perry and Neikro.

Of the group, I have Blyleven behind only Ryan and Perry.

I wasn't alive to see most of these guys pitch in their prime, but I believe you when you say Blyleven wasn't perceived to be on the same level as the others. I have a theory as to why - he was unlucky. Year after year Blyleven was among the league leaders in most every category, especially important and eye-catching ones like ERA and Ks. I think his poor records belied just how good he really was. Wins seems to be an absolute for pitchers, and Blyleven just wasn't winning as much as he should have or as much as his contemporaries mentioned in this thread. However, as the leaderboards I posted demonstrate, Blyleven was better more often than the rest of them in everything except Wins (which is also a team indicator).

[leecemark]

--I agree Wins aren't as important a stat for judging pitcher quality as some others. They aren't TOTALLY team dependant though. Some guys do seem to pitch just well enough to lose, while others pitch just well enough to win (those were hardly great teams Jenkins pitched for in his 6 year run of 20 game seasons). If "bad luck" follows you from team to team for 20 years maybe some of it is you. Mind you, I mostly agree with you on Blyleven's qualifications but Bert just didn't seem to have that quality (perhaps mystical rather than real) that you look for in a number one starter. Sometimes the numbers just don't tell the whole story about a guy.

[csh19792001]

As the lone dissenter to date, I feel oblilgated to post.

My biggest problem with Blyleven is that he was never the premier pitcher of his era. You can name 5 better (at least) starting pitchers in mlb at any time that he was in the league. He only received Cy Young votes 4 times, never finishing higher than 3rd.

Schilling was one of the best pitchers in baseball for the first five years of the 2000's, finishing with 3 second place Cy Young's, and would have one if not for Randy Johnson. Glavine has 2 Cy's, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. Smoltz has a CY. I'd put all three of these pitchers in ahead of Blyleven, they were all the best or near the best pitchers in their league for a period of time. Blyleven never was.

But the problem is that Cy Young voting is not always in line with reality. Players on good teams, with good ERA's, and with good W/L records tend to take the award easily.

Case in point- In 2004 Randy Johnson didn't have a prayer, because he went 16-14 on a team that lost 110 games. But he outpitched Clemens- his WHIP was far lower, he bested Rocket in H/9IP, BB/9IP, easily in ERA+ (171 to 145), and most other quality stats as well. Of course, he also had much more quantity, also- 246 innings was second in the NL, Clemens finished eigth. Four complete games to 0. You get the idea. Guys on winning teams tend to get the nod, even if the guy without the gaudy stats is actually better.

His teams were not as bad as you think. Here is a list of all the teams he played with (first numbers are the team W/L, second are Blyleven's):

Year Team W L W L GS %
1970 Min 98 64 60% 10 9 25 53%
1971 Min 78 82 49% 16 15 38 52%
1972 Min 77 77 50% 17 17 38 50%
1973 Min 86 76 53% 20 17 40 54%
1974 Min 81 81 50% 17 17 37 50%
1975 Min 78 81 49% 15 10 35 60%
1976 Min 85 77 52% 4 5 12 44%
1976 Tex 77 85 48% 9 11 14 45%
1977 Tex 92 70 57% 14 12 30 54%
1978 Pitt 86 75 53% 14 10 34 58%
1979 Pitt 95 67 59% 12 5 37 71%
1980 Pitt 83 79 51% 8 13 32 38%
1981 Cle 50 53 49% 11 7 20 61%
1982 Cle 74 88 46% 2 2 4 50%
1983 Cle 73 89 45% 7 10 24 41%
1984 Cle 81 81 50% 19 7 32 73%
1985 Cle 69 93 43% 9 11 23 45%
1985 Min 73 89 45% 8 5 14 62%
1986 Min 72 90 44% 17 14 36 55%
1987 Min 79 83 49% 15 12 37 56%
1988 Min 90 72 56% 10 17 33 37%
1989 Cal 92 70 57% 17 5 33 77%
1990 Cal 79 83 49% 8 7 23 53%
1991 Cal 81 81 50% 8 12 24 40%

His teams' W/L records are somewhat irrelevant, actually (unless, of course, we're talking about Cy Young voting :)). What matters most statistically is his run support in the games in which he pitched, and the quality of the defenses behind him. There are other factors, but it's a more lengthy discussion and can be left to another post.

His run support for his career was a 95- which is, frankly speaking, LOUSY. The only greats who ended up with worse support are Big Train, Nolan Ryan, and Maddux.

How much did it cost him?
Well, overall, even the "95" is misleading, because it weights seaons where he pitched 130 or even 2 innings as equal to those where he pitched 275-300 innings. And during many of his great years, runs support cost him dearly. In 1976, for instance, his run support was an abysmal 67- he should have gone 18-11, but went 13-16 because of the team he was on.

Here is a link- http://runsupportindex.blogspot.com/2004/11/single-season-rsi-adj-wl.html

If you scroll down to "the complete list" it has each of Blyleven's seasons, and how should have done. You can compare that to his actual wins and losses. They estimate that overall, Blyleven should have gone 298-239 instead of 287-250. What would happen to his rate stats had he been on excellent (or even good) defensive teams? They probably would also improve in a commensurate fashion.

Nolan was similarly routed- they estimate that he should have gone 341-275 instead of 324 and 292.

I'll repost something I read at baseballprimer on Blyleven:

"I looked at his run support on the basis of the game situation at the time of his departure, not a full game or per-nine-inning basis; IOW, if Blyleven got three runs of batting support through seven innings in which his team batted (he could have pitched anywhere from 6 innings to 7 2/3 innings in those games, depending on location and when he was removed from the game), I looked at other games in which the starter got three runs of support through seven innings in which his team batted, and compared how Blyleven did to how the other starters did in those games. It is clear that (a) Blyleven got far less support than did his teammates through his years in Minnesota and Texas (b) Blyelven won more games than his teammates won at similar levels of support (which he should have, because he was better than most of them), and (c) Blyleven won at a comparable rate of the other top pitchers in the league at similar levels of support. Ergo, the difference between Blyleven and Hunter, Tiant, et. al. is almost entirely due to the fact that those other pitchers were better supported on a game-by-game basis.

The "perception" of Blyleven as a pitcher who pitched just well enough to lose is fostered by the number of games in which he pitched that were close and low-scoring at the time that he left them. Nolan Ryan, to some extent, suffered from the same perception early in his career, more or less for the same reason. But Ryan - even at the time - was perceived as being a better pitcher than Blyleven. Case in point: in 1973, when Ryan was 21-16 with a 2.87 ERA and Blyleven was 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA in about the same number of innings, and Minnesota had a better record overall to boot, Ryan finished second in the CYA race with nine first-place votes, while Blyleven got one third-place vote. Looking at the distribution of runs that Blyleven gave up that year, he should have ended up something close to 24-12."

Stamina:
Blyleven was also an incredible workhorse, and it certainly wore down his arm over time and depreciated his rate stats, especially in comparison to the best of the current generation- Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens.

Here is some other information from TangoTiger's work on pitch counts:
Blyleven had roughly108 career games where he threw over 133 pitches. For a frame of reference, Pedro Martinez has had EIGHT games where he has been forced to throw over 136 pitches in his entire career. Clemens, who is a modern workhorse, had only 58 games where he had to throw more than 136 pitches. That's still less than half of Blyleven's total.


message above

[Ubiquitous]

--I agree Wins aren't as important a stat for judging pitcher quality as some others. They aren't TOTALLY team dependant though. Some guys do seem to pitch just well enough to lose, while others pitch just well enough to win (those were hardly great teams Jenkins pitched for in his 6 year run of 20 game seasons). If "bad luck" follows you from team to team for 20 years maybe some of it is you. Mind you, I mostly agree with you on Blyleven's qualifications but Bert just didn't seem to have that quality (perhaps mystical rather than real) that you look for in a number one starter. Sometimes the numbers just don't tell the whole story about a guy.


Perhaps this is a job for Dave Kent but fortunately Bert's entire pbp record is available on retrosheet. One is familiar with coding could program the data so that we could see how often Bert left with lead only to have the win taken away from him by his fellow relievers. How many times he left with a tie and it happened. How many times he pitched 7 innings or more and allowed 2 runs or less and still got the loss or no decision. So on and so on and then compare it to league average starters. Compare to league elite starters. See if it truly was Bert who pitched well enough to lose or that he didn't know how to win. Or if it truly was his teammates who let him down or just plain bad luck.

For instance in 1979 Bert went 12-5 in 37 starts. In 8 of those starts he went 7 or more innings and allowed 2 runs or less and either got the loss or a no decision. 22% of his starts allowed 2 runs or less and it wasn't good enough for his team to win.

I have no idea if that is a norm for somebody who starts 37 games or not.

[leecemark]

--That is an interesting choice of seasons as Blyleven had his "bad luck" that year for a team that won the World Series. He led that team in IP, but had the worst era amoung the starters. He didn't throw any of his many shut outs that year and completed only 4 games. The low number of complete games does appear to be more a result of Chuck Tanner liking to go to the pen (the Pirates had an outstanding one) than a lack of durabilty on Blyleven's part.
--The Pirates apparently didn't see him as their ace. He was the third starter in the LCS and started only one of the 7 WS games. John Candelaria and Jim Bibby pitched games 6 and 7 on 3 days rest rather than Blyleven. Granted, Bert had been called upon in relief in game 5 - but he could have started that game on 3 days himself, which obviously was something Tanner was obviously willing to do.
--The Pirates perception of him seems to have matched that of the general public - a very good pitcher, but not a truely special one. That he performed at that level for so long is Hall worthy, but isn't quite the stuff of legends.

[DoubleX]

--That is an interesting choice of seasons as Blyleven had his "bad luck" that year for a team that won the World Series. He led that team in IP, but had the worst era amoung the starters. He didn't throw any of his many shut outs that year and completed only 4 games. The low number of complete games does appear to be more a result of Chuck Tanner liking to go to the pen (the Pirates had an outstanding one) than a lack of durabilty on Blyleven's part.
--The Pirates apparently didn't see him as their ace. He was the third starter in the LCS and started only one of the 7 WS games. John Candelaria and Jim Bibby pitched games 6 and 7 on 3 days rest rather than Blyleven. Granted, Bert had been called upon in relief in game 5 - but he could have started that game on 3 days himself, which obviously was something Tanner was obviously willing to do.
--The Pirates perception of him seems to have matched that of the general public - a very good pitcher, but not a truely special one. That he performed at that level for so long is Hall worthy, but isn't quite the stuff of legends.

Can you explain why people had this perception of Blyleven? I don't doubt it's true, I just don't understand it. You have a pitcher that every year in his prime is going to have a good ERA and be among the league leaders in ERA, will strikeout over 200 batters and be among the league leaders in Ks, and will be among the league leaders in fewest baserunners allowed. In every category, other than wins, year after year in his prime Blyleven was among the league leaders. So I don't understand why this perception of Blyelven not being a good pitcher emerged? One would need only look at the yearly leaderboards and see that Blyleven is the most consistently good pitcher in the league. Did he have peaks as high as some other guys? Probably not? But he was always up there at his best. He might never have been THE best, but he almost always among the 3 or 4 best for a good decade.

[DoubleX]

Here's a good question for everyone...Beyond thinking if Blyleven belongs in Hall (which an overwhelming amount of members here believe he does), do you think Blyleven will one day actually be inducted into the Hall?

His support has been steadily gaining in recent years and it seems that in press more and more attention is brought to his case every year. He still has a huge uphill battle, but I think it's realistic that he could cross 50% this year, and I think that would be a good sign for his eventual election.

If he were to linger until the veterans committee, I think he would actually have a good shot with them as well. By that time, the elders on the committee will be mostly contemporaries of Blyleven, and I have read comments by many of them that they feel Blyleven certainly belongs and was among the toughest they ever faced.

[RuthMayBond]

My biggest problem with Blyleven is that he was never the premier pitcher of his era. You can name 5 better (at least) starting pitchers in mlb at any time that he was in the league.When you say never, you're not talking about single years,right?

[leecemark]

--XX, some players just never grab the public's attention. There are always going to be guys who are viewed as greater than their numbers would indicate and others viewed as less than the numbers. Not entirely fair, but in some cases the people closest to the issue may have seen things that don't show up in the numbers. Not saying that is true of Blyleven, but the manager of the best team he ever played on (and he was in his prime in 1979) seems to have had a view closer to the public perception than the sabermetric review.
--To answer your second question, I think Blyleven will eventually make the Hall. The question is more "will he generate enough support before time runs out with the writers or will he have to wait for the VC?". I'd put Blyleven in the top 40 for career value, although his peak probably wouldn't crack the top 50 (60, 70?).

[RuthMayBond]

--Jenkins is in because he was winning 20 games every year (and for not that good of teams) at his peak. Hunter was also winning 20 on a regular basis and coming up big in the post season (and had a catchy nickname).Hunter had incredible support, not so incredible ERA+

<Personally, I'd put him behind Jenkins (although making a logical arguement for that may be a challenge),>

You mean Blyleven having a better ERA+ AND more IP

[Brooklyn]

When you say never, you're not talking about single years,right?

Right. Lets take any five year stretch, for example, and I'd be hard pressed to say he was one of the five best pitchers in baseball during that period.

-- Personally, I'd put him ahead of Hunter and Sutton, but behind Jenkins (although making a logical arguement for that may be a challenge), Ryan, Perry and Neikro.

I'd mostly agree with your list. I tend to like Hunter ahead of Blyleven, mostly because of the 5 rings, in which Catfish was arguably the ace of the A's staffs and the second best pitcher on the Yankees staff, and he won a CY. Blyleven has 2 rings - but as leecemark points out, he was the number three pitcher on the 1979 team, and in 1987 he was the second best pitcher to Viola. That said, I wouldn't have Sutton in the Hall, and would be on the fence about Hunter and Jenkins. But the argument that they are in means Blyleven should be in doesn't fly with me - if they were mistakes, the Hall would be lowering the standard further by adding more mistakes.

If you scroll down to "the complete list" it has each of Blyleven's seasons, and how should have done. You can compare that to his actual wins and losses. They estimate that overall, Blyleven should have gone 298-239 instead of 287-250. What would happen to his rate stats had he been on excellent (or even good) defensive teams? They probably would also improve in a commensurate fashion.


I'm not familiar with this stat or how it works, but I added Blyleven's seasons and got 293-244 (not 298-239), which is not all that different than his actual record of 287-250.

His run support for his career was a 95- which is, frankly speaking, LOUSY. The only greats who ended up with worse support are Big Train, Nolan Ryan, and Maddux.

Again, I'm not familar with that stat. What does 95 mean? That he got 95% of the run support of the average player in those seasons, adjusted for park/league/etc.?

According to that site, Blyleven had a 102 in 1979 - does that mean he had above average run support in that year? Ubiquitous talks about him, being unlucky in 1979 - that wouldn't seem too unlucky too me.


--I agree Wins aren't as important a stat for judging pitcher quality as some others. They aren't TOTALLY team dependant though. Some guys do seem to pitch just well enough to lose, while others pitch just well enough to win (those were hardly great teams Jenkins pitched for in his 6 year run of 20 game seasons). If "bad luck" follows you from team to team for 20 years maybe some of it is you. Mind you, I mostly agree with you on Blyleven's qualifications but Bert just didn't seem to have that quality (perhaps mystical rather than real) that you look for in a number one starter. Sometimes the numbers just don't tell the whole story about a guy.

I also put a little more on Wins than most. After all, the name of the game is winning, and the pitcher has a lot to do with it. Some pitchers can grind out 1-0 or 2-1 games to get wins when their team can't score, but will allow more runs in blowouts. Great pitchers find ways to win games, and Blyleven tended to pitch just well enough to lose.

I think he was a very nice pitcher and would want him on my staff, but my team is in trouble if he is considered the ace.

[Ubiquitous]

--That is an interesting choice of seasons as Blyleven had his "bad luck" that year for a team that won the World Series. He led that team in IP, but had the worst era amoung the starters. He didn't throw any of his many shut outs that year and completed only 4 games. The low number of complete games does appear to be more a result of Chuck Tanner liking to go to the pen (the Pirates had an outstanding one) than a lack of durabilty on Blyleven's part.
--The Pirates apparently didn't see him as their ace. He was the third starter in the LCS and started only one of the 7 WS games. John Candelaria and Jim Bibby pitched games 6 and 7 on 3 days rest rather than Blyleven. Granted, Bert had been called upon in relief in game 5 - but he could have started that game on 3 days himself, which obviously was something Tanner was obviously willing to do.
--The Pirates perception of him seems to have matched that of the general public - a very good pitcher, but not a truely special one. That he performed at that level for so long is Hall worthy, but isn't quite the stuff of legends.


Well Bert was the Pirates opening day starter. Bert started against Philadelphia 6 times and 5 of those times he was matched up against Steve Carlton, the Philly Ace.

As for his usage him and Chuck Tanner the manager of the Pirates openly disliked each other, and his CG went down because of Tanner's bullpen usage not because Bert couldn't do it. Bert attempted to retire before the start of the 1980 season that is how much he hated Tanner.

As for the World Series Bert came into game 5 in the 6th inning and closed out the game for the victory. He did this only 3 days after starting the second game. Thus not really making him available for game 6. Both Candelaria and Bibby pitched on the 4th day after they had previously started. Asking Bert to start pivotal game 7 would mean he would have to pitch for the 3rd time in 7 days.

As for the LCS, Bert last start was on September 29th. The playoffs started on Oct 2nd. So to start the playoffs Bert would need pitch 3 days after his last start. To pitch game 2 it would be 4 days after his last start. Not going to happen. Your view of 1979 and the view of Bert on that team is completely wrong. You are looking solely at a BRef page and not actually looking at the player usage and making assumptions because of it.

[DoubleX]

Here's some more on the slight Blyleven received in public perception in the form of Cy Young finishes:

1971: Blyleven is 5th in ERA, 4th in Strikeouts, 4th in ERA+, and 9th in IP. He doesn't crack the top 10 in Cy Young voting, though he has better stastics than multiple players that did finish in the top 5, Blyleven just didn't have the record.

1973: Blyleven is 2nd in ERA, 2nd in Strikeouts, 1st in ERA+, 2nd in WHIP, 4th in IP, and 1st in Shutouts. He finishes 7th in Cy Young voting. His ERA is better than everyone else in the top 10 save Jim Palmer, and more than half a run better than everyone else save Nolan Ryan. The guy was 1st or 2nd in virtually all major pitching categories, yet finishes 7th in Cy Young. with only 1 measely point! This is a Cy Young season if I ever saw one!

1974: Blyleven is 4th in ERA, 2nd in Strikeouts, 2nd in ERA+, and 4th in WHIP. Again, he doesn't sniff the top 10 in Cy Young voting. Looking at the players that did place in the top 10, Blyleven certainly merited a top 5 finish this year...again, if not for his record.

1975: Blyleven is 6th in ERA, 2nd in Strikeouts, 5th in ERA+, 3rd in WHIP, and 7th in IP. Once again, he doesn't get a whiff of the top 10 in Cy Young voting. Again, looking at the players that did place in the top 10, Blyleven certainly merited a top 5 finish this year...and again, if not for his record.

1976: Blyleven is 9th in ERA, 3rd in Strikeouts, and 8th in ERA+, 4th in IP, and 2nd in Shutouts. No dent in the Cy Young race again.

1977: Blyleven is 2nd in ERA, 7th in Strikeouts, 2nd in ERA+, 1st in WHIP, and 2nd in Shutouts. You guessed it, no top 10 in the Cy Young again. Not only should Blyleven have finished in the top 10 this year, he should have won the Cy Young. He was the best pitcher across the board, if not for his record (and switching teams midseason)

1981: Blyleven is 8th in ERA, 3rd in Strikeouts, 9th in ERA+, and 8th in WHIP. No Cy Young placement this year (though this is a much more understandable outside of the Top 10 year).

1984: Blyleven is 3rd in ERA, 4th in Strikeouts, 2nd in ERA+, 2nd in WHIP, and 3rd in Shutouts. He finishes 3rd in the Cy Young voting and this marks the first time that Blyleven in his career is properly acknowledged. In a rare year, especially for the 1980s, two closers finish 1st and 2nd (Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry). Thus, Blyleven is arguably and finally acknowledged as the best starting pitcher in the AL. Had he achieved just one more victory and reached 20 wins, the Cy Young might have been his.

1985: Blyleven is 5th in ERA, 1st in Strikeouts, 6th in ERA+, 7th in WHIP, 1st in IP, and 1st in Shutouts. Again, he finishes 3rd in the Cy Young voting. Finally getting some respect, albeit a decade too late. As was the case in the 70s, Blyleven's mediocre record was his undoing. He should have finished 2nd this year, behind only Bret Saberhagen (Ron Guidry also finished ahead of Blyleven, despite trailing Blyleven in every category except Wins).

1989: Blyleven is 4th in ERA, 4th in ERA+, 3rd in WHIP, 7th in IP, and 1st in Shutouts. He finishes 4th in Cy Young voting, which is pretty reasonable, and I'd say he should have finished no higher than 3rd.

I stand by my statement that the guy just had extraordinarily bad luck. To be among the league leaders in so many categories year after year and receive absolutely no acknowledgement because of his crappy records is ridiculous. It's obvious that his mediocre records belied how good he was as seen in his performance in the other major pitching categories. The guy deserved more praise, but unfortunately people couldn't look past his records and see that he was actually much, much better than his records indicated. Also, he would have been the premiere strikeout artist of his day, and perhaps of all time (until Clemens and Johnson came along) if not for Nolan Ryan. Year and year in the 70's, Blyleven was finishing 2nd in strikeouts to the greatest strikeout pitcher ever, Nolan Ryan.

Blyleven is not just the story of someone who was good for a long time, but someone who was among the best in the league for a decade and who NEVER received the acknowledgement that his skills deserved. And the only explanation I can think of is that people couldn't look past his records and see that in every other category, Blyleven was among the very best in the league, year after year after year.

[Naliamegod]

My biggest problem with Blyleven is that he was never the premier pitcher of his era. You can name 5 better (at least) starting pitchers in mlb at any time that he was in the league. He only received Cy Young votes 4 times, never finishing higher than 3rd.

I always found the idea that a HoF player must be the "premier player" of his era at his postion horrificly overrated. Ashburn was probably on the 4th or 5th best CF during his era but that shouldn't be held against him. Why? He played in an era with DiMaggio/Mantle, Doby, Snider and Mays were also playing! The same thing goes with Bert who's prime was around the same time as Seaver, Palmer, Carlton, Perry and Ryan just to name a few. Seaver is arguebly a top 10 pitcher of all time and Palmer is top 15 IMHO with the other 3 being top 25 at worse. Jenkins and Perry were also pretty good as well.

When judging a player's HoF status one should note look at not just how he did against competition at his position, but more at how he does historically.

[RuthMayBond]

Among pitchers who are not in Hall BUT ELIGIBLE:

Wins: Blyleven is 2nd, 1st among 20th century
Innings: Blyleven is 1st
Strikeouts: Byleven is 1st
Games started: Blyleven is 2nd
Shutouts: Blyleven is 1st
Batters faced: Blyleven is 1st

[CyNotSoYoung]

Can you explain why people had this perception of Blyleven? I don't doubt it's true, I just don't understand it. You have a pitcher that every year in his prime is going to have a good ERA and be among the league leaders in ERA, will strikeout over 200 batters and be among the league leaders in Ks, and will be among the league leaders in fewest baserunners allowed. In every category, other than wins, year after year in his prime Blyleven was among the league leaders. So I don't understand why this perception of Blyelven not being a good pitcher emerged? One would need only look at the yearly leaderboards and see that Blyleven is the most consistently good pitcher in the league. Did he have peaks as high as some other guys? Probably not? But he was always up there at his best. He might never have been THE best, but he almost always among the 3 or 4 best for a good decade.
I think there were two things that contributed to the public perception of Blyleven and that these perceptions generated an overall feeling of, maybe not dislike, but just enough indifference to result in the mushy, negative "feelings" that the voters still feel to this day. One is that Blyleven was not particularly a fan favorite - early in his career he wanted out of Minnesota and was perceived to be rude and ungrateful. That kind of thing will stick to a ballplayer for a long time unless he overcomes it by winning the fans over in some other way - which Bert never subsequently did. The other thing is that he was from Europe - a place few ballplayers at that time, and even today, are from. Not that this there was overt xenophobia, but Blyleven could never be an "All American Boy" like Ryan, Perry, Catfish, etc. And you'd be fooling yourself if you think being a good old boy from down home doesn't factor into the voting. Jenkins was Canadian, but most Americans don't see Canadians as quite as "foreign" as Europeans and, being black, fewer people even realized he was Canadian. Not that Jenkins didn't didn't deserve election, he did, but political correctness helped Jenkins, despite his association with drugs, in a way that it would not help Blyleven.

[Brooklyn]

I always found the idea that a HoF player must be the "premier player" of his era at his postion horrificly overrated. Ashburn was probably on the 4th or 5th best CF during his era but that shouldn't be held against him. Why? He played in an era with DiMaggio/Mantle, Doby, Snider and Mays were also playing! The same thing goes with Bert who's prime was around the same time as Seaver, Palmer, Carlton, Perry and Ryan just to name a few. Seaver is arguebly a top 10 pitcher of all time and Palmer is top 15 IMHO with the other 3 being top 25 at worse. Jenkins and Perry were also pretty good as well.


Your analogy doesn't quite work for me. In the 50's, you are talking about 3 of the top 10 center fielders ever, with Mays being top 2. I also wouldn't put Dimaggio in the same era as Ashburn, but if you do you are talking about 4 of the top ten centerfielders of all time. The 50's were really the golden age of center fielders. You can't make the same argument about the 70's and pitching. Seaver is the only one that gets a look at a top-10 all-time guy, with Palmer and Carlton being top 20 guys. And (although I don't want to get into a Ashburn discussion here), the fact that he has a 111 career OPS+ is what people hold against him, not the fact that he played with all those greats.

And those center fielders were among the best in baseball, not just at their position. I compare center fielders to other center fielders, and to other hitters, making some adjusments for position, if necessary. You really can't do that with pitchers - there are no other positions that you can compare against to see if there is bias.

I'm also looking at it over different points in his career, not just in the era he played in. For the first five years of the 70's, you had Palmer, Seaver, Carlton, Perry and Ryan better than Blyleven, but you also had guys like Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue, Bob Gibson (very early 70's), Fergie Jenkins, Mike Cueller and Mickey Lolich who if not better than Blyleven, were all at least in the same conversation with him. In the end of the 70's, you had the same 5 guys better than Blyleven, plus guys like Tommy John, Ron Guidry, JR Richard, Frank Tanana (for 3 or so years) and Don Sutton who again if not better than Blyleven, were all at least in the same conversation with him. In the early 80's you had the same 5 guys again, but also Guidry, Fernando, Dave Stieb and Jack Morris who once again, if not better than Blyleven, were all at least in the same conversation with him. In the late 80's you had Frank Viola, Brett Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser, Dwight Gooden, Roger Clemens and Dave Stewart who were all better than Blyleven, and guys like Mike Scott, Jimmy Key and Bob Welch who were as good if not better than Blyleven.

Don't hold me to the exact eras in my above pararaph - I was confining to half-decades to illustrate the point, but some of them peaked at different times and were not strictly in the half-decade I put them in, and some of them were better for multiple half-decades. Now I'm not saying that all the players above deserve to be in the HOF ahead of Blyleven - clearly that is not the case. Blyleven was a good to very good pitcher for a long period of time, most of these other pitchers had peaks and fizzled out. But I don't think good to very good for a long period of time should be enough to get into the HOF. Blyleven had individual years that put him towards the top of the league, but he was at best a top-10 pitcher in his league for most of his career

When I said he was never the premier player of his era, a better way to say it may be that other teams never feared facing him. Using your Ashburn example, all the CFers you mention, made other teams think twice about facing them.

When judging a player's HoF status one should note look at not just how he did against competition at his position, but more at how he does historically.

How can you not look at how he did against his competition among other pitchers? That is all you are really doing when comparing his stats - his ERA and WHIP are based on the hitters of his era. His ERA+ is based on other pitchers of his era. Comparing players of different eras is really just subjective (and fun). And subjectively, I don't think he quite measures up against the all time greats.

[BigSteve]

This article (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2003/12/only_the_lonely_1.php) (and others on the site) makes a great case for why Blyleven should be in the HOF.

[Naliamegod]

I'm also looking at it over different points in his career, not just in the era he played in. For the first five years of the 70's, you had Palmer, Seaver, Carlton, Perry and Ryan better than Blyleven, but you also had guys like Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue, Bob Gibson (very early 70's), Fergie Jenkins, Mike Cueller and Mickey Lolich who if not better than Blyleven, were all at least in the same conversation with him. In the end of the 70's, you had the same 5 guys better than Blyleven, plus guys like Tommy John, Ron Guidry, JR Richard, Frank Tanana (for 3 or so years) and Don Sutton who again if not better than Blyleven, were all at least in the same conversation with him.

Gibson wasn't Blyleven's contemporary and Jenkins is the only other guy who compares to him. Saying any of the other guys were about as good is ridecolous. Blue had 1 great year with about 3-4 good ones, Lolich had two good years, Cueller finished top 10 in ERA+ twice and both were in the 60s, Tanana had 3 or 4 good years in the 70s and struggled to stay average the rest, Sutton had two really good year and was just above average the rest. The other guys had comparable peaks but their careers were nowhere near as close as valuable career wise.

In the early 80's you had the same 5 guys again, but also Guidry, Fernando, Dave Stieb and Jack Morris who once again, if not better than Blyleven, were all at least in the same conversation with him. In the late 80's you had Frank Viola, Brett Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser, Dwight Gooden, Roger Clemens and Dave Stewart who were all better than Blyleven, and guys like Mike Scott, Jimmy Key and Bob Welch who were as good if not better than Blyleven.

These games came later when his prime years were over and thus are irrelevent.

How can you not look at how he did against his competition among other pitchers? That is all you are really doing when comparing his stats - his ERA and WHIP are based on the hitters of his era. His ERA+ is based on other pitchers of his era. Comparing players of different eras is really just subjective (and fun). And subjectively, I don't think he quite measures up against the all time greats.

When did I say you can't? I'm saying whether or not he is the best is a horrible way to judge any player should be in the hall of fame or not. It is ONE way to measure their qualitiness but making it the biggest point is a big mistake. It favors those who play in weak eras over ones who play during strong eras at the position.

[DoubleX]

Among pitchers who are not in Hall BUT ELIGIBLE:

Wins: Blyleven is 2nd, 1st among 20th century

I think Tommy John might have something to say about that. John has one more career victory than Blyleven.

[Naliamegod]

I should also note according to ERA+ Blyleven was one of the top 5 pitchers in his leagye 7 times

[runningshoes]

I believe he will be elected sometime in the next 4 years.

[catcher24]

Posted by DoubleXX:
I think Tommy John might have something to say about that. John has one more career victory than Blyleven.

Another excellent example of how 300 wins is a magic number. Tommy John was, like Jim Kaat, a good pitcher for a very long time. It would be interesting to see how much more HOF support he would be receiving if he had reached 300 wins. I personally believe that he (and Kaat) would be in the HOF had they reached 300 wins - really, Don Sutton type pitchers.

[Brooklyn]

Gibson wasn't Blyleven's contemporary and Jenkins is the only other guy who compares to him. Saying any of the other guys were about as good is ridecolous. Blue had 1 great year with about 3-4 good ones, Lolich had two good years, Cueller finished top 10 in ERA+ twice and both were in the 60s, Tanana had 3 or 4 good years in the 70s and struggled to stay average the rest, Sutton had two really good year and was just above average the rest. The other guys had comparable peaks but their careers were nowhere near as close as valuable career wise.

You didn't read what I wrote. I was saying these pitchers wedre better than Blyleven for their careers, nor did I say they were all contemporaries of Blyleven. What I said was, for a particualr five or so year stretch, they were at least as good if not better than Blyleven. I was making my argument that he was never one of the premier pitchers in his league (for any longer than a year or so), not that these pitchers belong in the Hall ahead of him.

[Brooklyn]

These games came later when his prime years were over and thus are irrelevent.

He was 29 in 1980 and had almost half his wins in the 80's/90's. How can you say these years were irrevelant?

[DoubleX]

Another excellent example of how 300 wins is a magic number. Tommy John was, like Jim Kaat, a good pitcher for a very long time. It would be interesting to see how much more HOF support he would be receiving if he had reached 300 wins. I personally believe that he (and Kaat) would be in the HOF had they reached 300 wins - really, Don Sutton type pitchers.

That's very true. Sutton is in because he has 300 wins, but was he really that much better than John, Kaat, and Blyleven? I think at Blyleven and Kaat would have better Hall of Fame cases than Sutton had Sutton not reached 300 wins.

[catcher24]

Posted by DoubleXX:
I think at Blyleven and Kaat would have better Hall of Fame cases than Sutton had Sutton not reached 300 wins.

I agree with you 100% on Blyleven. I would prefer to have him over Sutton. Not quite so sure about Kaat (or John). Just off the top of my head, I think if one were to look at team reacords during an entire career, Sutton probably benefited most of the three (Sutton,Blyleven,Kaat) from playing on good teams.

[Naliamegod]

You didn't read what I wrote. I was saying these pitchers wedre better than Blyleven for their careers, nor did I say they were all contemporaries of Blyleven. What I said was, for a particualr five or so year stretch, they were at least as good if not better than Blyleven. I was making my argument that he was never one of the premier pitchers in his league (for any longer than a year or so), not that these pitchers belong in the Hall ahead of him.

Except that most of them WEREN'T better for any stretch extended of period with the possible exception of Guidry and Tanana (and Tanana had a ton of bad years). At most a few of them had a year or two that were better but thats it. Mickey's ERA+ was better only once during the years the both were active, during the 15 years they were in the same league Vida Blue only was better for about 5-6 years, Sutton about 4-5 in about 19 years, Hunter was better in his two best years, Richard was only better once during a full year (He would have been better in 1980 if fate was kinder to him), John was better around 3-4 years in 19 years (I could be off a bit on these counting just to let you know).

I don't compare him to 80s pitchers because his prime years were over by then and the players your comparing him to are ENTERING their prime years. You can't possibly compare him that way, it is a loaded and unfair comparison that most players would do poorly in.

[DoubleX]

Even though he still came up well short, I was very, very pleased with Blyleven's progress this year. He's been moving up steadily the past few years (he used to clustered with Kaat and John in the low-mid 20's every year), but this year he topped 58%. I think that's phenomenal and a sign that he's coming around.

Jayson Stark of ESPN.com recently wrote this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2283084) about why he changed his mind this year and voted for Blyleven. Some pretty good arguments, and change of heart seems to be a trend with Bert.

So do you guys think this trend will continue and that one day Bert will make it, or do you think he'll just never get over that hump? I have read quotes from players on the veterans committee that lead me to think that if Blyleven gets to that point, his chances will be pretty good (hopefully he'll get his due sooner and get elected by the writers.

[jalbright]

He's still got about half his BBWAA eligibility left, and while I wouldn't bet on much improvement next year, I think he'll get there before it runs out. If he's got to wait for the VC, I wouldn't get optimistic in its current form. The thing is, once someone breaks 50%, it draws attention to him as a serious candidate, so even those who earlier rejected him tend to give him a second look.

Jim Albright

[DoubleX]

He's still got about half his BBWAA eligibility left, and while I wouldn't bet on much improvement next year, I think he'll get there before it runs out. If he's got to wait for the VC, I wouldn't get optimistic in its current form. The thing is, once someone breaks 50%, it draws attention to him as a serious candidate, so even those who earlier rejected him tend to give him a second look.

Jim Albright

My thinking exactly. I was hoping for him to just crack 50% this year, since as you said, that tends to get a player more attention. The fact that Blyleven nearly got to 60% this year was a tremendous stride in my book.

[iPod]

At the same time, any argument that ends with "...so Blyleven probably will still get elected" could more strongly be made for the guys who finished ahead of him; Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, and Andre Dawson. I feel Gossage probably deserves induction, and I think he would get inducted probably if he just stopped whining about it. But man, I just don't like the sound of Jim Rice and Andre Dawson in the Hall of Fame. Would I put Bert Blyleven in the Hall on the condition that I had to put Rice and Dawson in too? I don't think I would.

[Chisox]

At the same time, any argument that ends with "...so Blyleven probably will still get elected" could more strongly be made for the guys who finished ahead of him; Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, and Andre Dawson. I feel Gossage probably deserves induction, and I think he would get inducted probably if he just stopped whining about it. But man, I just don't like the sound of Jim Rice and Andre Dawson in the Hall of Fame. Would I put Bert Blyleven in the Hall on the condition that I had to put Rice and Dawson in too? I don't think I would.

Dawson I would, but not Rice. Dawson was a great fielder, so you have to look past the numbers.

Gossage and Blyleven I would.

I'm glad Sutter made it.

[KCGHOST]

Blyleven's nice uptick this year makes me think he will getin one day. I am still trying to figure out how the voters selected Sutter over Gossage. Disappointed that Trammell makes no headway.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Blyleven's nice uptick this year makes me think he will getin one day. I am still trying to figure out how the voters selected Sutter over Gossage. Disappointed that Trammell makes no headway.
Sutter got in because he was on the ballot six years longer than Gossage. More time to mull over his case.

[The Commissioner]

"One day" I have to say yes to. In his lifetime? That's a completely separate question.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't understand this bit about writers waiting. If you wait, a guy will just get backed up behind others even more

[The Commissioner]

I don't understand this bit about writers waiting. If you wait, a guy will just get backed up behind others even more

I completely agree. If a guy is a Hall of Famer, he is a Hall of Famer. I don't see what the point is of electing someone on the fourteenth ballot, rather than on the the first just to make a point...unless your point is "I am a professional writer and yet know less than your average eight year old" (no offense to any eight year olds who may be reading this).

[plask_stirlac]

I sure hope so. You'd think even if you were just looking at the surface, you'd say he had great career stats and did win, actually. He lost plenty, but he's 25th in wins and was 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in the playoffs, the ace of the WS champion 1979 Pirates and a key workhorse for the 1987 Twins as well. There must be a lingering predisposition of him as a loser or homer-shocked, but he was HOF-worthy.

If you go into it, he was robbed if he could only get 7th in 1973 CYA voting. He always showed consistency and was sometimes not brilliant like Koufax or Seaver, but as good as could be found. Screw the HRs, he was only Top 10 in most allowed 5 times! And he often started 37 games. He gave up 128 in his first 249 starts. He was top 10 in K's from 1971-81 and 84-87.

Certainly a much-more-heralded contemporary is Carlton, and they're definitely close enough that Blyleven should be in as well.

I also like Stark's stats. They're about enough said.

[rsuriyop]

Dawson I would, but not Rice. Dawson was a great fielder, so you have to look past the numbers.


Adding to that, he was also a better baserunner/stealer and was far more durable as his 21-year career suggests.

[E.Banks#14]

Adding to that, he was also a better baserunner/stealer and was far more durable as his 21-year career suggests.
As well as playing on turf in Montreal.

[GnomeansGno]

What is wrong with the baseball writers, not to have voted the guy with the most dominant curveball in the game during his era into the HOF:His other 22-year Major League career highlights include:

- 287 wins - 25th on the All-Time list
- 250 loses - 10th on the All-Time list
- 3.31 career ERA
- 4,970 innings pitched - 13th on the All-Time list
- 3,701 strikeouts - 5th on the All-Time list
- 685 career starts - 9th on the All-Time list
- 242 complete games
- 60 shutouts - 9th on the All-Time list
-15 (1-0 wins) - 3rd on the All-Time list
-One of only three pitchers to ever win a Major League game before his 20th birthday and also win a Major League game after his 40th birthday.
-7th on the All-Time homeruns allowed list
-Played on two World Series teams: 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates and the 1987 Minnesota Twins
-Two-Time All-Star: 1973 and 1985
- Won 20 games in 1973

Here's two good articles on Blyleven's HOF case.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/the_hall_of_fam.php

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0728/1411078.html

[DoubleX]

I can't deal with anymore Blyleven discussions. They make me crazy! The guy should be in. He might be the unluckiest pitcher ever in terms of record. One of these days I'll finish my project of going through all of his starts and tabluating all of his close losss and no decisions in quality and great starts. It was up to like 50 or something in his firsr 8 or 9 years.

[NOMAR22]

What is wrong with the baseball writers, not to have voted the guy with the most dominant curveball in the game during his era into the HOF:His other 22-year Major League career highlights include:

- 287 wins - 25th on the All-Time list
- 250 loses - 10th on the All-Time list
- 3.31 career ERA
- 4,970 innings pitched - 13th on the All-Time list
- 3,701 strikeouts - 5th on the All-Time list
- 685 career starts - 9th on the All-Time list
- 242 complete games
- 60 shutouts - 9th on the All-Time list
-15 (1-0 wins) - 3rd on the All-Time list
-One of only three pitchers to ever win a Major League game before his 20th birthday and also win a Major League game after his 40th birthday.
-7th on the All-Time homeruns allowed list
-Played on two World Series teams: 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates and the 1987 Minnesota Twins
-Two-Time All-Star: 1973 and 1985
- Won 20 games in 1973

Here's two good articles on Blyleven's HOF case.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/the_hall_of_fam.php

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0728/1411078.html

I saw Bert Blyleven pich, he had probably one of the best curves balls of all-time he should EASILY make the HOF.

[KCGHOST]

Most stats oriented people think Blyleven should be in the HoF, but in defense of the writers remember that he only made two all-star teams in 22 years and only one 20 games once. Of course, he is so much better than Don Sutton you think they would figure out who should be in the HoF.

[Appling]

Is there one thing more that, had it happened (in addition to Bert's actual achievements)-- might have put him in the Hall of Fame already?

* Perhaps just one "Super Season" -- say, 25 wins and a pitching Triple Crown?
* Better run support by the hitters on his team?
* Add 13 more wins to his career total?
* A higher W-L percentage?

Or perhaps it isn't better numbers that he needed but something else?
If he had a more outgoing attitude and showed more joy -- perhaps like Kirby Puckett -- might that have put him in with no change in his career numbers?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I can't deal with anymore Blyleven discussions. They make me crazy! The guy should be in. He might be the unluckiest pitcher ever in terms of record. One of these days I'll finish my project of going through all of his starts and tabluating all of his close losss and no decisions in quality and great starts. It was up to like 50 or something in his firsr 8 or 9 years.
Where do you feel Blyleven ranks among thread topics between this and the History forums? I think he's certainly top 10.
I saw Blyleven pitch, too, and actually kind of followed his career closely. (I had players I liked more, but Bly was a second-tier favorite of mine.) I honestly don't recall Blyleven's name being listed with the elites when people would talk about who the elites were among his contemporaries. He was considered a very good pitcher and a fine complement to the staff "ace". When he was climing the ranks in the all time K rankings, it was almost seen as a nice surprise, here is Blyleven with the likes of Seaver, Carlton and Gibson. He posted fine overall counting stats without really resonating with the public, or even the writers. Most unfortunate considering where he wound up in the conventional (i.e. baseball card stats) rankings.
I honestly think the progress he has made with the voters the last couple years (some nice jumps percentage wise) is a good sign toward his eventual election. It took the writers 15 years to vote Robin Roberts in. This wrong will also be righted before he makes the VC.

[DoubleX]

Is there one thing more that, had it happened (in addition to Bert's actual achievements)-- might have put him in the Hall of Fame already?

* Perhaps just one "Super Season" -- say, 25 wins and a pitching Triple Crown?
* Better run support by the hitters on his team?
* Add 13 more wins to his career total?
* A higher W-L percentage?

Or perhaps it isn't better numbers that he needed but something else?
If he had a more outgoing attitude and showed more joy -- perhaps like Kirby Puckett -- might that have put him in with no change in his career numbers?

Or perhaps if he just got some more run support? Bert was good enough to have won well past 300 games, but he just wasn't getting the support on his day far too often. For example, in just Blyleven's first four seasons, look at all the close games Blyleven loss, despite pitching at least 7 innings and giving up 3 or fewer runs:

Date Outcome Blyleven's Line
6/10/70 2-1 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 3 K, 2 BB
7/1/70 2-1 (ND - W) 7 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 9 K, 1 BB
9/8/70 3-2 (L) 8.1 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 8 K, 4 BB
9/12/70 5-3 (L) 7 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 4 K, 2 BB
9/16/70 5-1 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 10 K, 2 BB
9/30/70 6-4 (ND - W) 8 IP, 1 ER, 5 H, 3 K, 4 BB

4/27/71 2-0 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 9 K, 1 BB
5/30/71 6-5 (L) 7 IP, 3 ER, 8 H, 8 K, 2 BB
6/19/71 2-1 (ND - W) 8 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 7 K, 2 BB
6/23/71 8-3 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 8 K, 2 BB
7/20/71 6-5 (ND - L) 8 IP, 3 ER, 11 H, 9 K, 0 BB
8/4/71 2-1 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 6 K, 3 BB
8/17/71 3-2 (L) 9 IP, 3 ER, 9 H, 6 K, 1 BB
9/1/71 2-0 (ND - L) 10 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 6 K, 1 BB

5/8/72 5-3 (L) 7 IP, 3 ER, 7 H, 4 K, 0 BB
5/13/72 5-4 (ND - L) 9 IP, 3 ER, 7 H, 8 K, 1 BB
5/21/72 5-2 (L) 7 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 10 K, 1 BB
6/4/72 3-0 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 2 H, 6 K, 1 BB
6/12/72 2-1 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 4 K, 2 BB
6/21/72 4-2 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 6 H, 7 K, 2 BB
6/29/72 5-3 (L) 7 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 3 K, 1 BB
7/8/72 1-0 (ND - L) 10 IP, 0 ER, 8 H, 6 K, 2 BB
7/21/72 2-0 (L) 7 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 3 K, 1 BB
7/27/72 4-3 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 5 K, 0 BB
8/19/72 2-1 (L) 7 IP, 2 ER, 6 H, 10 K, 3 BB
8/26/72 5-3 (ND - L) 8.2 IP, 3 ER, 10 H, 5 K, 3 BB
9/27/72 1-0 (L) 10.1 IP, 1 ER, 7 H, 9 K, 2 BB

4/14/73 2-1 (L) 9 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 8 K, 0 BB
4/18/73 3-2 (L) 9 IP, 3 ER, 9 H, 9 K, 1 BB
6/2/73 3-2 (ND - W) 9 IP, 1 ER, 11 H, 7 K, 4 BB
6/25/73 3-2 (L) 8 IP, 3 ER, 10 H, 10 K, 2 BB
8/9/73 2-1 (L) 9 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 9 K, 2 BB
8/21/73 2-1 (L) 8.1 IP, 2 ER, 10 H, 3 K, 2 BB
8/26/73 3-2 (L) 7.2 IP, 3 ER, 9 H, 11 K, 0 BB
9/30/73 3-0 (L) 8 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 7 K, 2 BB

As you can see, just in his first 4 seasons, Blyleven got a loss or no decision in 35 games in which he pitched well enough to win. Turn just 13 of those around and he has 300 wins. Moreover, of these games, 17 were games in which he pitched at least 8 innings; 9 were games in which he pitched at least 9 innings, and 3 were 10 IP games. There is no reason, that a pitcher going 8-10 innings, giving up 0-3 runs, should not get a favorable decision 17 times in a four year stretch. That's ridiculously poor luck. And it's that poor luck that is kept him from being fully appreciated during his career, since a pitcher's dominance, especially back then, was heavily equated with record, and Bert's record didn't reflect how well he was pitching; and it is that bad luck that is keeping him out of the Hall now.

As for questions about Bert's dominance. In just that four year stretch, he threw 20 complete games in which he gave up 5 or less hits; 7 three-hitters or better; 4 two-hitters or better; and 2 one-hitters.

[DoubleX]

Where do you feel Blyleven ranks among thread topics between this and the History forums? I think he's certainly top 10.
I saw Blyleven pitch, too, and actually kind of followed his career closely. (I had players I liked more, but Bly was a second-tier favorite of mine.) I honestly don't recall Blyleven's name being listed with the elites when people would talk about who the elites were among his contemporaries. He was considered a very good pitcher and a fine complement to the staff "ace". When he was climing the ranks in the all time K rankings, it was almost seen as a nice surprise, here is Blyleven with the likes of Seaver, Carlton and Gibson. He posted fine overall counting stats without really resonating with the public, or even the writers. Most unfortunate considering where he wound up in the conventional (i.e. baseball card stats) rankings.
I honestly think the progress he has made with the voters the last couple years (some nice jumps percentage wise) is a good sign toward his eventual election. It took the writers 15 years to vote Robin Roberts in. This wrong will also be righted before he makes the VC.

Pretty much agree with you all around, though I think a lot of the perception of Bert's ability while he was playing was skewed by his records, in which he was saddled with an inordinate amount of losses and no-decisions for how well he was pitching. See my chart for his first four years above this post.

[538280]

I like Blyleven for the HOF, but I feel the push people have made for his induction has caused him to become very much overrated by statistical people. IMO (and I talked about this before), he would be the second worst pitcher from his era if he was inducted.

Going from an earlier project of mine (see thread "Tiered HOF") I'd call Blyleven a solid tier 3 HOFer.

[DoubleX]

I like Blyleven for the HOF, but I feel the push people have made for his induction has caused him to become very much overrated by statistical people. IMO (and I talked about this before), he would be the second worst pitcher from his era if he was inducted.

Going from an earlier project of mine (see thread "Tiered HOF") I'd call Blyleven a solid tier 3 HOFer.

You're probably right, but the only way to fight perpetual underrating, and underrated that has the very serious effect of keeping him out of the Hall, is to overrate him to make up the gap. It's not too dissimilar from some people overrating Sal Bando to make up for the general underrating of him. ;)

[538280]

You're probably right, but the only way to fight perpetual underrating, and underrated that has the very serious effect of keeping him out of the Hall, is to overrate him to make up the gap. It's not too dissimilar from some people overrating Sal Bando to make up for the general underrating of him. ;)

Maybe I do overrate Sal Bando, I don't know. If I do, it's subconscious, as it probably also is for the Blyleven people ;)

At least with Bando, I'll always know Bill James is with me.

[Pine Tar]

As I have said before in one of the many Bert threads that pop up here sporadically, I am not willing to say that Bert should be in the hall. To me, if here were elected I wouldn't call his election a mistake, but I am certainly not willing to call his not being elected a mistake either. He may have been the unluckiest pitcher ever but I am not sure if that really matters. I mean, his numbers remind me a lot of Phil Neikro, and although he made it to the hall, the only reason he made it to the hall is because he made it to 300 wins. There are a lot of people that don't think that Neikro should be in the hall. I think it took him 5 years to get elected. So as I have said before, Bert is sort of an unlucky Phil Neikro. So why elect him?

[J W]

Is there one thing more that, had it happened (in addition to Bert's actual achievements)-- might have put him in the Hall of Fame already?

* Perhaps just one "Super Season" -- say, 25 wins and a pitching Triple Crown?
* Better run support by the hitters on his team?
* Add 13 more wins to his career total?
* A higher W-L percentage?

*Yes, absolutely. 25 wins and a triple crown would necessitate a Cy Young, and likely a lot of MVP votes. Almost everything missing from his resume is made up like that.
*I think so. He'd have 300 wins, and a better win%, say, in the .560 range, with average support.
*See above.
*No, I don't think a higher win% alone would make his case to the writers.

[vasprtsfn]

I agree Blyleven is a HOF. A good example of why there needs to be a 15 year window for players on the ballot. Keep in mind, if Bruce Sutter can get in after a decade on the ballot, Blyleven will get his chance. Remember, he is on the ballot until 2013.

[DoubleX]

I agree Blyleven is a HOF. A good example of why there needs to be a 15 year window for players on the ballot. Keep in mind, if Bruce Sutter can get in after a decade on the ballot, Blyleven will get his chance. Remember, he is on the ballot until 2013.

Good point. I still have my doubts that Blyleven will ever get over the hump with the writers. I think there are just too many stubborn and stupid writers that refuse to open their eyes. I think he'll top off around 65%, but I have been very happy with the strides he's made in recent years.

[Pine Tar]

Good point. I still have my doubts that Blyleven will ever get over the hump with the writers. I think there are just too many stubborn and stupid writers that refuse to open their eyes. I think he'll top off around 65%, but I have been very happy with the strides he's made in recent years.
Were those writers who didn't vote for Phil Neikro "stubborn and Stupid"? I for one would not be suprised if he had to wait till the veteran's committee to get elected. I think that he is yelling a bit too loudly that he should be elected and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bit of a backlash against him. His numbers do not scream out hall of famer. They have to be adjusted, rotated, finagled with, and even then you have to resort to the least scientific means to prove his hall merit; that he was unlucky.

Vote no in 07.

[DoubleX]

Were those writers who didn't vote for Phil Neikro "stubborn and Stupid"? I for one would not be suprised if he had to wait till the veteran's committee to get elected. I think that he is yelling a bit too loudly that he should be elected and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bit of a backlash against him. His numbers do not scream out hall of famer. They have to be adjusted, rotated, finagled with, and even then you have to resort to the least scientific means to prove his hall merit; that he was unlucky.

Vote no in 07.

I have nothing against Niekro being in the Hall, so yes, those writers that were not supporting Niekro were being stubborn and stupid with an unrealistic concept of the Hall being more elite than it actually is. If you believe in a very narrow Hall with only the Johnsons, Seavers, Groves, Youngs and the like in, then no, Niekro doesn't belong and neither does Blyleven. I believe the Hall is meant to be bigger than that, that Niekro and Blyleven belong, as I have both within my top 40 pitchers ever. But like I said, the size of the Hall is often a matter of personal preference. You seem to one an extremely elite Hall, which is fine. I certainly respect that. I'd like to see a few more players there and I don't really believe that Niekro's inclusion denigrates Walter Johnson, there is room for both, but I wouldn't go much past guys I have on a level consummate to Niekro (though there are some other pitchers in there that I don't feel belong).

[vasprtsfn]

Good point. I still have my doubts that Blyleven will ever get over the hump with the writers. I think there are just too many stubborn and stupid writers that refuse to open their eyes. I think he'll top off around 65%, but I have been very happy with the strides he's made in recent years.

One further point. This winter, the ballot will include for the first time Ripken, Gwynn, and McGwire (please keep the arguments for/against McGwire out of this thread) as hall eligible. But after that, there is a monumental drop off on who becomes hall eligible. Over the next 3 years after this winter, The only notable names that I see as Hall worthy that come up for eligibility are Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson and possibly Edgar Martinez. So after next winter, Blyleven will have a great chance.

[Pine Tar]

I have nothing against Niekro being in the Hall, so yes, those writers that were not supporting Niekro were being stubborn and stupid with an unrealistic concept of the Hall being more elite than it actually is. If you believe in a very narrow Hall with only the Johnsons, Seavers, Groves, Youngs and the like in, then no, Niekro doesn't belong and neither does Blyleven. I believe the Hall is meant to be bigger than that, that Niekro and Blyleven belong, as I have both within my top 40 pitchers ever. But like I said, the size of the Hall is often a matter of personal preference. You seem to one an extremely elite Hall, which is fine. I certainly respect that. I'd like to see a few more players there and I don't really believe that Niekro's inclusion denigrates Walter Johnson, there is room for both, but I wouldn't go much past guys I have on a level consummate to Niekro (though there are some other pitchers in there that I don't feel belong).
I actually do not have a problem with Neikro being elected to the hall. I wouldn't call his election a mistake or anything. I also wouldn't be that sad if he weren't in the hall since the only real reason he is in the hall is that he has more than 300 wins. I don't particularly like hall arguments based on arbitrary numbers like 300 wins, 500 home runs, 1500 RBIs, etc. Most of the arguments for Bert are based on his being just as good as players that are in the hall primarily because they reached 300 wins, like Sutton or Neikro. If you take away their 300 wins, they are not elected to the hall. Blyleven didn't get to 300 wins for whatever reason, so why elect him if the argument for him is that he was as good as the players who were only elected because they reached 300 wins. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe there is a better argument out there for him, I just don't think I have heard it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I actually do not have a problem with Neikro being elected to the hall. I wouldn't call his election a mistake or anything. I also wouldn't be that sad if he weren't in the hall since the only real reason he is in the hall is that he has more than 300 wins. I don't particularly like hall arguments based on arbitrary numbers like 300 wins, 500 home runs, 1500 RBIs, etc. Most of the arguments for Bert are based on his being just as good as players that are in the hall primarily because they reached 300 wins, like Sutton or Neikro. If you take away their 300 wins, they are not elected to the hall. Blyleven didn't get to 300 wins for whatever reason, so why elect him if the argument for him is that he was as good as the players who were only elected because they reached 300 wins. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe there is a better argument out there for him, I just don't think I have heard it.
The basest argument is he's fifth all-time in K's and ninth in shutouts, two stats that are easily understandable by the once-a-year-family-outing-attending fan.

[KCGHOST]

On the subtle Blyleven's NWL record is 313 - 224.

[Pine Tar]

The basest argument is he's fifth all-time in K's and ninth in shutouts, two stats that are easily understandable by the once-a-year-family-outing-attending fan.

I don't think that really qualifies as a better argument considering Don Sutton is 7th all time in Ks and 10 all time in shut outs yet the main reason he was elected after 5 years of trying was because he reached 300 wins.

[leecemark]

--There are maybe 25 pitchers in baseball history who clearly had better careers than Bert Blyleven. Personally, I rank him more like 35-40, but after the first 25 or so you can make a pretty decent case for Blyleven being as good or better (for his career, lots of guys beat him on peak). Considering the number of players currently in the Hall (and the fact that 4 of the guys clearly head of him are still active) that makes him a pretty solid Hall of famer in my book.

[shawnofthedead]

He is among the elite in Wins, Strikeouts, Shutouts, Complete Games and yet he cant get urinated on by the voters.

Blyleven had a marginal winning percentage for sure, but he played the majority of his career for some really lousy teams. One stat I read said Blyleven lost 52 1 run ballgames over his career...and i dont mean 9-8..I mean his team was so bad he lost 1-0, 2-1 consistently.

Wins 287 (25th All time, and much higher among Modern Era pitchers)
Strikeouts 3701 (5th All Time)
Shutouts 60 (9th All Time)
242 Complete Games
3.31 ERA

what do you guys think?

[STLCards2]

A majority of us agree. Blyleven did get 50% of the writers vote for the first time, so there is hope. The only drawback is...in about 4-8 years there will be a slew of very good candidates...Bonds, Johnson, Maddux, Clemens, Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Thomas, I. Rodriguez, etc. Blyleven better get in in the few years between the Ripken/Gwynn year and the rush of big-timers.

[Big Whiskey]

This column is a very good synopsis of the biases writers have when it comes to Blyleven's candidacy. Note the utter lack of objectivity.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05351/624041.stm

[brett]

I ran an estimate of Blylevin's career if he had pitched for average teams in his career and he ends up solid, 305-234, but he still would never have put up an absolutely dominating year. I think he came out to be 23-14 one year, and in '84 his record actually matched what it SHOULD have been if he had pitched for an average team. He's in though, no doubt.

One suprise was that his ERA and innings should have produced a better record than 287-250 even on the teams he played for, by a win or two.

[KCGHOST]

We have beat Blyleven to death. A strong majority of us agree he should be in. On the other hand every time I see an actual poll come up involving him he never gets 75% here either.

[terribledude]

But Blyleven is in the BBFHOF, no?

[RuthMayBond]

But Blyleven is in the BBFHOF, no?We can only dream. I mean, he was no Jesse Haines :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

We can only dream. I mean, he was no Jesse Haines :laugh
He's referring to the Hall of Fame here, RMB, which Haines is not in and Blyleven is in. So the jab is not justified.

[RuthMayBond]

He's referring to the Hall of Fame here, RMB, which Haines is not in and Blyleven is in. So the jab is not justified.Sorry, it wasn't meant as a jab. I better find out about this Hall, because I thought you guys were better than the Coop

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a jab. I better find out about this Hall, because I thought you guys were better than the Coop
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41140

New voters are always welcome. Chancellor started this about three years ago, and Jim Albright continues the stewardship.

[2Chance]

Aside from former Steeler Chris Fuamatu Ma'afala (whom ESPN's Chris Berman called Chris Fuamatu (I'm a bad) Ma'afala, Bert (Be Home) Blyleven has the best Berman nickname of all time. That's huge.
I thought that distinction belonged to John "Let It Be" Lowenstein.

Collier makes some kind of statement about taking it really seriously this year and might spend a whole hour deciding, then basically goes by reading the names and if one jumps out at him with no thought process required, that's who he votes for. And in another place, statistics be damned.

This article seemed to be a tongue in cheek way of taking it on the chin for all writers, all of whom receive a ballot and few of whom have a clue.

I hope.

[jalbright]

Here's a nice article in support of Blyleven: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=365795&postcount=128

Jim Albright

[THE OX]

I think that Robin Roberts richly deserves his inclusion in Baseball's Hall of Fame.

The similarities between Blyleven's career records and Robbie's are startling. If Roberts belongs in the HOF (and I'm damn certain that he does), Blyleven belongs, too!

HOF voters, kindly extract your heads from your behinds and get with the program!

[Bigrcube]

Simply put; YES ! ! ! He belongs.

[AlecBoy006]

So the guy played 22 seasons. He's top 5 in strikeouts. Kearns643 said: And homers surrenderred. Yeah, well, Robin Roberts gave up 505 of them (most all time) and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1976.



BBR stats: Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (129) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (68) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses

Look at these guys.

Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, Catfish Hunter, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Hal Newhouser, all guys in the top 100 in wins, all Hof'ers, all guys who have fewer wins than Blyleven. It really bothers me that he is not in yet.

[abacab]

Blyleven is gaining support. I think he will eventually be elected by the BBWAA, in 3-5 years. Yeah, he should already be in, but what can you do.

[SamtheBravesFan]

So the guy played 22 seasons. He's top 5 in strikeouts. Kearns643 said: And homers surrenderred. Yeah, well, Robin Roberts gave up 505 of them (most all time) and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1976.



BBR stats: Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (129) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (68) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses

Look at these guys.

Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, Catfish Hunter, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Hal Newhouser, all guys in the top 100 in wins, all Hof'ers, all guys who have fewer wins than Blyleven. It really bothers me that he is not in yet.

Well, don't go by wins, it makes you look like a doofus. Strikeouts are his main forte in this case, that's for sure, I think we all can agree on that. However, that is the basis most argue him getting into the Hall; that he knew how to strike out people with his dynamite curve for 22 years. So... I got nothing beyond that.

[AlecBoy006]

I don't look like a doofus, wins are hard to get these days.

[Dalkowski110]

"BBR stats: Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (129) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (68) (Likely HOFer > 100)"

I've always found the Black Ink Test for pitching to be VERY misleading for guys that play on poor quality teams (like Bert Blyleven or Early Wynn, perhaps the most unfaily judged pitcher in the Hall due to his first nine seasons with the Washington Senators...only one of those teams was even close to contention). He'd have a lot more wins if he played with a good team, and a sure-fire Hall of Famer. He'll probably get his needed (and well deserved!) support in 2 or 3 years, as someone mentioned. He IS, fortunately, gaining support, not losing it.

[DoubleX]

I think the best argument for Blyleven is to point out little support he got, especially early in his career when he had his best stretch. He lost or got no decisions in dozens of games when he pitched 7, 8, 9 and even 10 innings and gave up 3 runs or less. That shouldn't happen. Unfortunately, a pitcher is largely judged by his w/l record, so Blyleven during much of his prime, wasn't posting a record consummate to how well he was pitching, and thus never got the due he deserved in his time. That of course carried over to post-career and is why he's not in. The sad things is, if he had 13 more wins, he'd be in the Hall. The sadder thing is that if you look at his starts, start by start, you'll see that he pitched well enough to have won several more games, especially early in his career. He really should have about 320 wins in his career, and perhaps more, but certainly at least 300. The point is, that while w/l is not a great way to judge a pitcher, it is the way that the writer use for the Hall, with 300 being an all important benchmark. So the writers should realize that Blyleven was very much so a 300 win pitcher, the run support just wasn't there far too often when he was at his best. Pitchers should not pitch 8+ innings (including 10 innings on a few occasions), give up 0-3 runs, and not get a win as often as Blyleven did early in his career.

[AlecBoy006]

If Blyleven won 300 games, would he be in already?

[SamtheBravesFan]

If Blyleven won 300 games, would he be in already?

Probably. :)

[AlecBoy006]

What is taking them [the commitee] so long?

[DoubleX]

If Blyleven won 300 games, would he be in already?

Without a doubt. IMO, Blyleven was a better pitcher than Early Wynn, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro, and they're all in thanks to 300 wins.

[538280]

Without a doubt. IMO, Blyleven was a better pitcher than Early Wynn, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro, and they're all in thanks to 300 wins.

You really think he's better than Niekro? Just going by normal things like ERA+ Blyleven is a bit ahead, but he also pitched about 500 less innings. I agree Blyleven should absolutely be in though, I think the reason why he's not is that writers look at 287-250 and think of him like guys like Tommy John, just long lasting journeymen. But his ERAs are actually a lot better than that.

[DoubleX]

You really think he's better than Niekro? Just going by normal things like ERA+ Blyleven is a bit ahead, but he also pitched about 500 less innings. I agree Blyleven should absolutely be in though, I think the reason why he's not is that writers look at 287-250 and think of him like guys like Tommy John, just long lasting journeymen. But his ERAs are actually a lot better than that.

Blyleven was a more dominant pitcher, IMO:

No. of 130 ERA+ Seasons
Blyleven: 7
Niekro: 4

No. of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
Blyleven: 7
Niekro: 3

No. of Top 10 ERA+ Seasons
Blyleven: 11
Niekro: 7

Top 5 ERA Seasons
Blyleven: 7
Niekro: 3

Top 10 ERA Seasons
Blyleven: 10
Niekro: 4

No. of Top 5 K Seasons
Blyleven: 13
Niekro: 6

No. of Top 10 K Seasons
Blyleven: 15
Niekro: 7

No. of Top 5 WHIP Seasons
Blyleven: 7
Niekro: 4

No. of Top 10 WHIP Seasons
Blyleven: 11
Niekro: 5

Shutouts
Blyleven: 60
Niekro: 45

I know you don't really like leaderboards, but to me these show that Blyleven for about a decade was consistently among the best performers in the league, while Niekro was good, but whose career is more a longevity thing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think this is the main thing. He was overshadowed during his long career by pitchers who were clearly better (Seaver, Palmer, Clemens, Carlton, Ryan), and often by pitchers of comparable quality who were more prominent for any of a number of reasons (Niekro, Perry, Catfish, Sutton). He never had that one really flashy season to hang his hat on (as many of those guys did). He played on several teams, in mostly relatively obscure media markets like Minnesota, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Texas. He only had two All-Star appearances (this is really something that should be devalued for pitchers, because selections are so contingent on availability to pitch, composition of the staff, etc.) His curveball wasn't as awe-striking as Ryan's fastball or Carlton's slider, nor as entertainingly quirky as Niekro's knuckler, nor as charmingly roguish as Perry and Sutton's, um, "hard sinkers".

All of these factors hurt him in the "I knows them when I sees them" segment of the BBWAA electorate, which is a large one.

I should note that of the eight pitchers you mention, six are 300 game winners.

Of the two that aren't, Palmer was a multiple Cy Young winner who was considered the best pitcher in the AL in the mid 1970s. Catfish won 20 five times in a row.

Blyleven won 20 only once, AND didn't have a great winning percentage.

Rarely will I use the following argument, but if Jim Bunning's in the HOF, how can you keep out Blyleven?

[DoubleX]

I should note that of the eight pitchers you mention, six are 300 game winners.

Of the two that aren't, Palmer was a multiple Cy Young winner who was considered the best pitcher in the AL in the mid 1970s. Catfish won 20 five times in a row.

Blyleven won 20 only once, AND didn't have a great winning percentage.

Rarely will I use the following argument, but if Jim Bunning's in the HOF, how can you keep out Blyleven?

But Blyleven's winning percentage is a product of poor support, especially early in his career. He literally go losses or no decisions in dozens of games in the early part of his career when he pitched 7-10 innings and gave up 3 runs or less, frequently giving up 1 run or less. His record doesn't reflect how well he pitched and he should have won many more games, especially early in his career.

[The Kid]

287 wins should get you in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

287 wins should get you in.

That's my bottom line with Blyleven.

This, of course, begs the question: How do you feel about Tommy John and Jim Kaat?

[Captain Cold Nose]

That's my bottom line with Blyleven.

This, of course, begs the question: How do you feel about Tommy John and Jim Kaat?
The easy answer is how do you feel about 3500 K's.

And a heck of a lot of shutouts. And two WS rings. Bly's superficial case is far better than John's or Kaat's.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The easy answer is how do you feel about 3500 K's.

And a heck of a lot of shutouts. And two WS rings. Bly's superficial case is far better than John's or Kaat's.

I'm not convinced of that. Kaat had a much higher peak; he was overshadowed because he was in the AL in the 1960s, and because of Koufax.

Some of the bias toward Blyleven over the others is the bias in favor of power pitchers. How much bias should be given there is open to debate, IMO.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm not convinced of that. Kaat had a much higher peak; he was overshadowed because he was in the AL in the 1960s, and because of Koufax.

Some of the bias toward Blyleven over the others is the bias in favor of power pitchers. How much bias should be given there is open to debate, IMO.
Kaat did indeed have a higher peak, he was a top AL pitcher when most of the greats were in the other league, but that should not be held against him at all.

That's legit about power pitching bias. It's the reason Koufax and Ryan get more credit than they seemingly deserve. Why so many remember J.R. Richard and Sam McDowell but not Jim Lonborg so much. But there's something about a pitcher getting it done on his own that is more memorable than getting a lot of routine flyballs and groundouts. The last action does leave its mark.

The writers didn't vote Bunning in. They came very close, but the VC voted the Senator/Governor in. Blyleven's support has gone up significantly the last couple years. His shot is solid at this point.

[Freakshow]

I'm not convinced of that. Kaat had a much higher peak;
Wait. Based on what? A team-dependent stat like wins? Or something meaningful?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wait. Based on what? A team-dependent stat like wins? Or something meaningful?

Kaat's 1964-66 seasons were clearly higher than Blyleven's peak. Kaat would have won the AL Cy Young Award in 1966 if there had been awards given in both leagues at that time.

Kaat was an extreme control pitcher who threw strikes; he led the league in lowest walks per 9 innings twice in his career, and was in the top 10 in that category 13 times.

Wins are not an entirely team-dependent stat, either. Kaat's 1966 season came during a mild off year for the Twins. Kaat was 10-2 in mid-season in 1972 when he suffered a freak injury and was done for the year; the Twins were struggling at that time. Kaat's W-L was not a function of luck.

[plask_stirlac]

Taking Kaat over Blyleven for peak is like when Gardy started Radke over Santana. Nothing wrong with Radke, but it doesn't make him the better pitcher.

Blyleven didn't have the greatest peak but it was better than Kaat. Lower ERAs and more IP when league ERAs were slightly higher. 3/3. Bly got pretty bad run support, in 1973 his worst two months for ERA were 3.47 and 3.09 and he still lost 17 games. Park-adjusted league ERA for him was 3.98, so it's not like he was fluttering around that level.

[sapblatt]

Huge IP, 5th all time in Ks, (only two in the top 20 are not in HoF - or they will be) - Tanana and Lolich are only top 20 k guys not in...I think the other current players are shoe ins in the top 20 except Schilling, but I think he gets in on Ks and post season record - three WS winners...
Blyleven should be in...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Huge IP, 5th all time in Ks, (only two in the top 20 are not in HoF - or they will be) - Tanana and Lolich are only top 20 k guys not in...I think the other current players are shoe ins in the top 20 except Schilling, but I think he gets in on Ks and post season record - three WS winners...
Blyleven should be in...

Blyleven's persona has worked against him. He was perceived as a bit of a crybaby while active. Chuck Tanner, who was one of the easiest managers to get along with, actually called him "Cryleven" once.

I don't think that's fair, but I think that image cost Blyleven a Cy Young Award.

Blyleven should be in, and he'll get there someday. He pitched for a lot of crummy teams. The more I look at it, the more I am convinced that Blyleven should have won the Cy Young Award in 1984; his performance with a losing team was excellent. He got shafted in the voting, and it's too bad.

[Ubiquitous]

Blyleven's persona has worked against him. He was perceived as a bit of a crybaby while active. Chuck Tanner, who was one of the easiest managers to get along with, actually called him "Cryleven" once.

To be fair to Bert I think it should be noted that Bert was caught in a transitional phase of pitching usage. Bert was used to pitching complete games or at least pitching deep into games. He usually completed half or more of his games. Then when he came to Pittsburgh that all stopped. 1978 marked the first time that he didn't finish at least half of the games he started since he was 21, and then in 1979 Tanner had him only finish 4 games out of 37 starts.

Bert grew up in a different era of baseball when different things were expected out of the starting pitching. He grew up in that era but then ran smack dab into the beginning of the modern era of relievers.

[HDH]

Bert Blyleven
Tommy John
Jim Kaat