If Bert Blyleven were...

[plask_stirlac]

His snubbing does not make any real sense, but the voting system and voters don't necessarily make sense and many are very confusing. Round numbers? So you'll only order off a $.99 menu and not a $1 menu? If a store opens at 8:59 or 8:57 that's too early? An entire player's career down to whether it ends in 00s? 13 wins?

Everyone who watches a pitcher go the distance with 2 R gives him credit, and they question the guy with 5 R and the win. But if it happens twice a year or so and adds up to 30 times, one is not a "winner."

I have no idea how Don Sutton is better than him, other than having 1972 as one of those great years. Same for Catfish Hunter.

So, going as it is now in voting...

If Bert Blyleven were...

(Bob Gibson, etc.)
Black, would he be in?
Nasty, a headhunter, would he be in?

named Curt Schilling, would he be in? Two rings to three, but not much separation.
covered more by the media as a "mouth" would he be in?

claimed by a disease early, would he be in?

I don't think there's a bias for African-Americans, but for pitchers they stand out. And how is Gibson ushered in with his postseason numbers but Blyleven can't be? 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA and better in 1979. Didn't people like that team?

[DoubleX]

It's fairly simple, IMO. If Blyleven's teams, particularly during his prime years with the Twins, gave him better support, he'd be in because he'd likely have that shiny 300 wins that the writers love.

[MadHatter]

It's very simple for me. The Hall of Fame voting criteria is not necessarily about pure numbers, it should be about dominance. Blyleven was never considered one of the outstanding pitchers of his time.

Lots of Blyleven discussions... I particularly like the debate in this thread:
http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=65374

I just don't get the Blyleven love. yes, he had a nice curve. But Rob Dibble had a nice fastball...

[curveball]

He should have been in a long time ago, but isn't in because voters are infatuated with wins, and win %. It seems only astute followers of the game know this is highly dependant on run support. Blyleven's record swells to 325-227 with average run support.

Voters also focus on number of All-Star games, and Cy Young voting results, as reasons to keep him out, which again focus on high win totals, and winning %. To this day, it is better to be 22-12, and have an era of 3.30, than to be 18-15, and have an era of 2.15. I'd rather have the pitcher with the lower era, but hell, what do I know.

[Captain Cold Nose]

He should have been in a long time ago, but isn't in because voters are infatuated with wins, and win %. It seems only astute followers of the game know this is highly dependant on run support. Blyleven's record swells to 325-227 with average run support.

Voters also focus on number of All-Star games, and Cy Young voting results, as reasons to keep him out, which again focus on high win totals, and winning %. To this day, it is better to be 22-12, and have an era of 3.30, than to be 18-15, and have an era of 2.15. I'd rather have the pitcher with the lower era, but hell, what do I know.

What's really curious is it seems that's where it begins and ends for Blyleven. You hear the 287 wins, and the lower percentage. The guy retired third all time in strikeouts and is top ten in shutouts, two items that are recognized at the basest level.

Even a slightly deeper look would seem to be enough for the writers who apparently just look on the backs of baseball cards. But there is consolation in his recent upswing. I won't bet on it, but the circumstances are in his favor for eventual election by the writers right now.

[curveball]

It's very simple for me. The Hall of Fame voting criteria is not necessarily about pure numbers, it should be about dominance. Blyleven was never considered one of the outstanding pitchers of his time.

Lots of Blyleven discussions... I particularly like the debate in this thread:
http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=65374

I just don't get the Blyleven love. yes, he had a nice curve. But Rob Dibble had a nice fastball...


What exactly is dominance to you. Perhaps you can elaborate. In the 70s, and 80s, name me all the pitchers you think were more dominant than Blyleven, and why?

Blyleven pitched 22 yrs. He was top 10 in era 10 times, top 10 in era+ 12 times, top 10 in WHIP 11 times, top 10 in strikeouts 15 times, top 10 in innings pitched 11 times, top 10 in complete games 12 times, and top 10 in shutouts 10 times.

I eagerly await your list of dominant pitchers, and your explanation of what you think a dominant pitcher is. Also, it would be preferable if you backed up your opinion with facts (data), instead of just opinions and thoughts.

[Brad Harris]

Blyleven would already be in had his teams given him more opportunities to shine in the postseason. Had his entire career been spent in New York or Los Angeles, he'd already be in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Blyleven would already be in had his teams given him more opportunities to shine in the postseason. Had his entire career been spent in New York or Los Angeles, he'd already be in.

Blyleven does have as many WS rings as either the Yankees or Dodgers earned during his career. I think the NY/LA factor doesn't account for much anymore, at least by the writers.

[curveball]

Blyleven pitched 22 yrs. He was top 10 in era 10 times, top 10 in era+ 12 times, top 10 in WHIP 11 times, top 10 in strikeouts 15 times, top 10 in innings pitched 11 times, top 10 in complete games 12 times, and top 10 in shutouts 10 times.

Maybe top 10 is too easy to accomplish. How about top 5 then. He was top 5 in era 7 times, top 5 in era+ 7 times, top 5 in WHIP 7 times, top 5 in innings pitched 6 times, top 5 in complete games 6 times, and top 5 in shutouts 9 times.

[brett]

If he were...less bitter?

[RuthMayBond]

It's very simple for me. The Hall of Fame voting criteria is not necessarily about pure numbers, it should be about dominance. You mean like, uh,
Sutton
Ruffing
Wynn
Chesbro
Pennock
Grimes
Marquard
Hunter
Haines :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[RuthMayBond]

If Blyleven . . .
. . . were friends with Frisch.
. . . played for the Yanks a lot.
. . . won one more game each year, only for most of the years he played
. . . had a recent career (don't think he'd be accused of steroids)
:rant::grouchy

[plask_stirlac]

It's very simple for me. The Hall of Fame voting criteria is not necessarily about pure numbers, it should be about dominance. Blyleven was never considered one of the outstanding pitchers of his time.

Lots of Blyleven discussions... I particularly like the debate in this thread:
http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=65374

I just don't get the Blyleven love. yes, he had a nice curve. But Rob Dibble had a nice fastball...

Do you count Bob Gibson as dominant in 1967? Because Blyleven was that kind of "good enough" ace in the season but fully healthy and the best postseason pitcher, a true playoff ace.

Gibby --- 175.1 IP, 13-7, 151 H 40 BB, 1.09 WHIP, 2.98 (110 ERA+, lg 3.27), 147 K, 10 HR
=== Postseason ===
3 GS, 2 SHO, 1 game with 1 ER, 3-0, 27 IP, 26 K

Bert 79 --- 237.1 IP, 12-5, 238 H 92 BB, 1.39 WHIP, 109 ERA+, 172 K, 21 HR
=== Postseason ===
3 G, 2 GS, CG, 19 IP, 2-0, 3 ER, 1.42 ERA, 13 K

Blyleven was the most dominant pitcher in 1973. Switch Holtzman with him and the records would at least switch and Blyleven would have a lower raw ERA. The A's were better than the Twins, they led the league runs in an awful park for hitters. I don't know how the Twins finished 4th in runs (some big scores but a lot of bad games? 2004 White Sox-esque?) but Blyleven (2nd in ERA and in IP) got only 11 non shutout wins and 17 losses. It's like Gibson 1968, why didn't he win 30 with his ERA? Is it his fault?

1973 is not that blinding of a year among HOFers, but it is excellent among all eligible players (even one-trick ponies like Tudor) and he need not have Gibson's 1968 to qualify as a HOFer.

[MadHatter]

What exactly is dominance to you. Perhaps you can elaborate. In the 70s, and 80s, name me all the pitchers you think were more dominant than Blyleven, and why?

Blyleven pitched 22 yrs. He was top 10 in era 10 times, top 10 in era+ 12 times, top 10 in WHIP 11 times, top 10 in strikeouts 15 times, top 10 in innings pitched 11 times, top 10 in complete games 12 times, and top 10 in shutouts 10 times.

I eagerly await your list of dominant pitchers, and your explanation of what you think a dominant pitcher is. Also, it would be preferable if you backed up your opinion with facts (data), instead of just opinions and thoughts.

I don't really respond to demands. But my opinions on Blyleven can be found all over this board (especially in the link I listed).

Numbers are numbers... they tell me that Blyleven played long enough to amass good numbers. Could he be the Julio Franco of pitchers? Did batters fear him? Was he the pitcher you wanted on the mound in the big game? Was he ever elite - even for a season?

[curveball]

I don't really respond to demands. But my opinions on Blyleven can be found all over this board (especially in the link I listed).

Numbers are numbers... they tell me that Blyleven played long enough to amass good numbers. Could he be the Julio Franco of pitchers? Did batters fear him? Was he the pitcher you wanted on the mound in the big game? Was he ever elite - even for a season?

I skimmed through the first 3 pages of that old thread, and all I can say is that your arguments are not really much of arguments. I didn't think I needed to go further.

You base your arguments only on your opinions and perceptions, which in my opinion are bad opinions and misconceptions. Then again, if I based my arguments like you, I wouldn't want to back them up with stats or facts either, because then I would be able to see that my arguments wouldn't hold up.

[ElHalo]

You base your arguments only on your opinions and perceptions, which in my opinion are bad opinions and misconceptions. Then again, if I based my arguments like you, I wouldn't want to back them up with stats or facts either, because then I would be able to see that my arguments wouldn't hold up.

Or, maybe, everybody's perceptions. For all his amazing counting stats, he's tied for 98th all time in Cy Young votes... tied with Esteban Loiza, one spot ahead of Bill Swift. Apparently, he wasn't much loved in his own time.

[plask_stirlac]

I don't really respond to demands. But my opinions on Blyleven can be found all over this board (especially in the link I listed).

Numbers are numbers... they tell me that Blyleven played long enough to amass good numbers. Could he be the Julio Franco of pitchers? Did batters fear him? Was he the pitcher you wanted on the mound in the big game? Was he ever elite - even for a season?

I think the Pirates and Twins in 1987 were pleased to say the least.

Also, ElHalo how can you count CY votes when it used to be vote for one player only, all others be darned? Juan Marichal got only one vote, an 8th, but we can agree he was one of the best in his time and those perceiving him would agree, he just was the second fiddle.

[RuthMayBond]

Was he ever elite - even for a season?Let's try this.
He led his league in ERA+ in 1973. Is that elite enough?

[RuthMayBond]

Or, maybe, everybody's perceptions. For all his amazing counting stats, he's tied for 98th all time in Cy Young votes... tied with Esteban Loiza, one spot ahead of Bill Swift. Apparently, he wasn't much loved in his own time.And Marichal never won one, and Saberhagen won two. What's your point?

[baseballPAP]

Lets not forget is is those very same "experts" that made those votes that are now keeping BB out of the Hall.

Hatter, if the facts don't back up your argument, does that mean they didn't happen? You speak of dominance, but 3rd all time in Ks isn't good enough for you? Top 10 in shutouts?

You're obviously correct...your 20 year old perceptions are the end of the argument. :bowdown:

[ElHalo]

Lets not forget is is those very same "experts" that made those votes that are now keeping BB out of the Hall.

Hatter, if the facts don't back up your argument, does that mean they didn't happen? You speak of dominance, but 3rd all time in Ks isn't good enough for you? Top 10 in shutouts?

You're obviously correct...your 20 year old perceptions are the end of the argument. :bowdown:

I don't think he's wrong about the concept. "Dominance" has very little to do with stats. Dave Stewart was dominant, but his stats are pretty poor. Greg Maddux has some of the best stats ever, but he was never particularly dominant.

[curveball]

Or, maybe, everybody's perceptions. For all his amazing counting stats, he's tied for 98th all time in Cy Young votes... tied with Esteban Loiza, one spot ahead of Bill Swift. Apparently, he wasn't much loved in his own time.

Cy Young voting is based on wins and win %, which a pitcher cannot really control. All a pitcher can do is prevent the opposing team from scoring, so era is much more important, but not to the voters.

Besides, if you are going to argue that Blyleven being 98th all time in Cy Young voting is a good reason for keeping him out, then why don't you list the 97 pitchers ahead of him. How many of those are in the HoF, and how many were better than Blyleven? So there are 97 pitchers better than Blyleven because they received more votes lifetime?

Instead of using this against him, I would think most people should instead wonder why a pitcher of Blyleven's calibre would fare so poorly in Cy Young voting. The reason is actually pretty simple for those with an open mind. I'll give you a clue, it is primarily what I said in the first paragraph.

When Blyleven compares favourably with the the other pitchers enshrined in measures like win shares, warp, era+, and others, I would think that those are much more convincing arguments.

He is also comfortably in the top 10 in shutouts, and strikeouts, and pretty much every pitcher around him is enshrined, even those well below him.

There have been many convincing arguments on why Blyleven deserved to get voted in already. There are people who already knew this, people who didn't know, but were open-minded enough to admit they were wrong, and people who didn't know, and don't want to be enlightened either.

[ElHalo]

Cy Young voting is based on wins and win %, which a pitcher cannot really control.

I don't know that I'd say that. Pedro Martinez won two Cy Youngs finishing fourth or lower in wins.

It really comes down to this: There's some people who want to see Blyleven in the Hall. There's some people who want to see Jack Morris in the Hall. These are pretty much opposite people, coming at the situation from basically diametrically opposed angles. It's the way of things.

[curveball]

I don't know that I'd say that. Pedro Martinez won two Cy Youngs finishing fourth or lower in wins.

It really comes down to this: There's some people who want to see Blyleven in the Hall. There's some people who want to see Jack Morris in the Hall. These are pretty much opposite people, coming at the situation from basically diametrically opposed angles. It's the way of things.

I am very curious to see what the lowest winning % for a starter ever to win a Cy Young is. Blyleven never really had high win% seasons because he didn't get great run support for most of his career. So how could he ever do well in Cy Young voting?

The guy finished with an actual record of 287-250. With average run support, he would have been 325-227. Most people would wonder why his record wasn't better based on his stellar career era. My first thought would have been lousy run support, and bingo, he did have below average run support. Was below average run support his fault?

Jack Morris doesn't even compare to Blyleven. This is where you know who knows their stuff, and who doesn't.

[MadHatter]

Lets not forget is is those very same "experts" that made those votes that are now keeping BB out of the Hall.

Hatter, if the facts don't back up your argument, does that mean they didn't happen? You speak of dominance, but 3rd all time in Ks isn't good enough for you? Top 10 in shutouts?

You're obviously correct...your 20 year old perceptions are the end of the argument. :bowdown:

No - I'm not shying away from the stats - I agree that he played long enough to build up nice stats.

[MadHatter]

You base your arguments only on your opinions and perceptions, which in my opinion are bad opinions and misconceptions. Then again, if I based my arguments like you, I wouldn't want to back them up with stats or facts either, because then I would be able to see that my arguments wouldn't hold up.

Apparently I'm not really in the minority in my opinions - or Bert would have been in the HOF by now.

I know, I know... here come all the "well the voters are stupid" comments. You can always fall back on that one.

[DoubleX]

Apparently I'm not really in the minority in my opinions - or Bert would have been in the HOF by now.

Well he did receive over 60% of the vote this year, so you would appear to be in the minority view, at least as far as the writers go. :)

Anyway, if you're a small Hall guy, I can see leaving Blyleven out. But if you believe peers like Niekro and Sutton belong, I think you have to believe that Blyleven belongs as well. I think Blyleven also compares favorably to Ryan, Perry, and Jenkins, and it's probably not even worth mentioning how he compares to Hunter. Of his peers, I'd say that only Seaver, Carlton, and Palmer were a clear notch above (though I'd put Ryan and Perry ahead of him as well).

[ElHalo]

Anyway, if you're a small Hall guy, I can see leaving Blyleven out. But if you believe peers like Niekro and Sutton belong, I think you have to believe that Blyleven belongs as well. I think Blyleven also compares favorably to Ryan, Perry, and Jenkins, and it's probably not even worth mentioning how he compares to Hunter. Of his peers, I'd say that only Seaver, Carlton, and Palmer were a clear notch above (though I'd put Ryan and Perry ahead of him as well).

Well, saying that he's better than Niekro, Sutton, and Jenkins is damning with faint praise. I'd put him behind Ryan, and about equal with Perry... and Perry falls just below my Hall line.

[ElHalo]

I am very curious to see what the lowest winning % for a starter ever to win a Cy Young is. Blyleven never really had high win% seasons because he didn't get great run support for most of his career. So how could he ever do well in Cy Young voting?


For a pitcher, it's Eric Gagne, at .400. For a starter, it's Gaylord Perry in 1972 at .600 (24-16), followed by Jim Palmer in 1976 at .629 (22-13), and then Mike Scott in 1986 and Roger Clemens in 1991 (both .643, at 18-10).

[curveball]

For a pitcher, it's Eric Gagne, at .400. For a starter, it's Gaylord Perry in 1972 at .600 (24-16), followed by Jim Palmer in 1976 at .629 (22-13), and then Mike Scott in 1986 and Roger Clemens in 1991 (both .643, at 18-10).

Yeah, I took a quick glance, and Perry seems to be the lowest at exactly 60%, but the average for a starter easily exceeds 60%. Blyleven was only over 60% twice in his career, so those were his only chances to win a Cy Young.

You also must have a very small Hall then because Blyleven is arguably amongst the top 30 pitchers in history. Blyleven is not a top-tier Hofer, but he is definitely not a borderline one based on the pitchers in there now. He fits more than comfortably with the pitchers currently enshrined, and that is why there has been such an effort to get him voted in.

[RuthMayBond]

Well, saying that he's better than Niekro, Sutton, and Jenkins is damning with faint praise. I'd put him behind Ryan, and about equal with Perry... and Perry falls just below my Hall line.But you do have Walter Johnson in, right?

[ElHalo]

But you do have Walter Johnson in, right?
Indeed. Are you saying Blyleven's better than Johnson?

[curveball]

I think he, along with myself, is just wondering exactly how small your HoF is. If Blyleven can't cut it, then you must have only about 25 pitchers tops.

By the way, just because your HoF is small, why can't you be objective about Blyleven? He may not belong in your tiny Hall, but he would definitely belong in the current Hall, wouldn't he? If you think he would at least belong in the current Hall, then why do you keep arguing against him?

[RuthMayBond]

Indeed. Are you saying Blyleven's better than Johnson?Nice reach, esquire McCovey. Try reading the question as it stands :rolleyes::think:

[Brad Harris]

Well, saying that he's better than Niekro, Sutton, and Jenkins is damning with faint praise. I'd put him behind Ryan, and about equal with Perry... and Perry falls just below my Hall line.

About where I've got them, too, except that it's pointless to be a "small Hall" guy when the reality is so much different. What we're debating is whether Blyleven belongs in the actual Hall of Fame, not our respective personal halls. And the line for that honor is somewhere south of Perry and Blyleven.

[plask_stirlac]

I can't see how Steve Carlton is a first-ballot guy ans Seaver gets about 100% and Blyleven can't get in for many years, if there's any claim to not being a Hall of Wins. But he has 287! A lot of guys don't. Hunter?

Of course some people just think of him as "Mr. Home Run Allowed" though he wasn't the most frequent, he just pitched about 5000 innings. And his 50 HR and 46 HR seasons were good seasons, he was well above average. and pitched over 525.

[RuthMayBond]

I can't see how Steve Carlton is a first-ballot guy ans Seaver gets about 100% and Blyleven can't get in for many years, if there's any claim to not being a Hall of Wins. But he has 287! A lot of guys don't. Hunter? :crazy

<Of course some people just think of him as "Mr. Home Run Allowed">

It didn't seem to stop Robin Roberts :think:

[Captain Cold Nose]

:crazy

<Of course some people just think of him as "Mr. Home Run Allowed">

It didn't seem to stop Robin Roberts :think:

Roberts didn't get in right away, though. And Blyleven, as good as he was, is not Carlton or Seaver.

I have seen people on this site list Blyleven as a top-10 all-time pitcher. He's not. Just as the undeserved snubbing of Ron Santo has caused him to be regarded higher by many than he should be, Blyleven's tenure on the ballot has certainly enhanced his all-time status. He was a great pitcher who should be in the HOF based on the pitchers who have been elected through the years. Let's not make him out to be more than he was. And, yes, RMB, I know you're not doing that.

[RuthMayBond]

And Blyleven, as good as he was, is not Carlton.Or is he?

-------------Carlton Blyleven
ERA+ ------- 115 118
K/BB king ----- 2 3
K/BB top10 --- 8 16
WHIP king ---- 0 1
WHIP top10 -- 5 11
PRAA ------- 247 283

I'll save everyone saying "1972" :rofl:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Or is he?

-------------Carlton Blyleven
ERA+ ------- 115 118
K/BB king ----- 2 3
K/BB top10 --- 8 16
WHIP king ---- 0 1
WHIP top10 -- 5 11
PRAA ------- 247 283

I'll save everyone saying "1972" :rofl:

Selective stats are just that.

[RuthMayBond]

Selective stats are just that.That's a fair amount of "selective stats"

[Captain Cold Nose]

That's a fair amount of "selective stats"

Fair, but only.

[RuthMayBond]

Fair, but only.And the "non-selective" stats from you?

[curveball]

I don't think it is a stretch to compare Blyleven with Carlton. Carlton had a much better actual winning% than Blyleven, so Blyleven falls way behind if you want to argue Cy Young and All-Star voting.

The only thing stopping Blyleven from being talked about in the same opinion as Carlton is his won/loss record. Neutralizing them, Carlton would have been 336-237, and Blyleven 325-227, so Blyleven would have had the higher % by a whisker.

If you want to talk actual stats, particularly those that aren't voted on by, then Blyleven can more than hold his own with Carlton in my opinion.

[plask_stirlac]

I think after 13, 15 years or so the people made up their minds about each guy, but Blyleven had a resurgence and Carlton was fair to bad.

Carlton was a better pitcher, I would say, and we have a lot of evidence. A top ten seasons comparison would probably go to him. But Bly was as consistent or more so and did better late, so for value they're close. 136.9 WARP1 for Carlton, 147.6 for Blyleven.

It's like Eckersley the closer vs. a more even career like John Franco.

Both are absolute inductees.

[Mike Hoban]

There are two aspects of this thread that bother me.
1. Blyleven was not a "dominant" pitcher.
2. His only claim to fame was that he pitched for a long time a la Don Sutton.

To my thinking, both of these statements are suspect. The NEWS HOF Gauge suggests that Bert was the 24th best starting pitcher of the 20th century. He has outstanding HOF numbers.

What does "dominance" really mean? For me, it means how well you pitched over your ten best seasons. I think we can all agree that Randy Johnson is a dominant pitcher. For his best ten seasons, he has averaged 23 win shares per season. Bob Feller averaged 24. What about Bert? He averaged 22 win shares per season - the same as Don Drysdale. To me, that is dominance. Nolan Ryan averaged 19 - as did Don Sutton.

Of course, Blyleven pitched for a long time. But since when is that a negative thing? Bert pitched VERY WELL for a long time - accumulating 339 win shares - more than Gibson, Palmer, Jenkins, Feller, Ryan and Sutton (all deserving Hall of Famers).

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

[Los Bravos]

There are two aspects of this thread that bother me.
1. Blyleven was not a "dominant" pitcher.
2. His only claim to fame was that he pitched for a long time a la Don Sutton.

To my thinking, both of these statements are suspect.They almost always are, no matter how many times they're made, about most every Pitcher they're made about.Of course, Blyleven pitched for a long time. But since when is that a negative thing?If anyone has a good answer to that, I'd sure like to read it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Blyleven is not in the HOF, and did poorly in award voting while active, for several reasons. One is that he posted records near .500 in his best years with the Twins, a team in decline. Another is that he played for teams that were poorly regarded; the Twins, Rangers, and Indians were all poorly regarded teams, even though the Rangers won 92 games during Blyleven's only full season with them.

Blyleven was the best starting pitcher in the AL in 1984. He didn't win the CYA because of Willie Hernandez' remarkable season. I consider Hernandez' selection to be a mistake, but Hernandez also won the AL MVP that year (another mistake, IMO), so it's clear that his season made a huge impact on the observers of the time.

Bert's personality wasn't a help; he was perceived as a crybaby at times. That image appears to be fading somewhat, but he was penalized for it.

Bert only won 20 games once, and that's a big deal; it was the reason that voters were so hesitant (wrongly, IMO) to induct Don Sutton. Especially in light of (A) the induction of Jim Bunning and (B) the lack of outcry over Bunning's selection, I can't justify Blyleven's continued exclusion. I do believe that the writers will elect him, if only on the last shot.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And the "non-selective" stats from you?

I just don't think Blyleven was as good as Carlton. That's it.

Do I think Carlton was "tons" better? No. Do I think an argument can be made for Blyleven? You're making it, aren't you? Carlton's numbers suffer because he did not finish well, which, to me, is what makes them a shade closer in the numbers than I think they actually are, I don't think at the numbers in a "black and white" manner because baseball is not a "black and white" sport.

I do think Blyleven was as good as Sutton, if not better. He was as good as Niekro, as good as Drysdale, as good as Jenkins, maybe as good as Perry. Or Palmer. Almost as good as Carlton.

[RuthMayBond]

I just don't think Blyleven was as good as Carlton. That's it.I was hoping for a little mroe of your reasons

<Carlton's numbers suffer because he did not finish well, which, to me, is what makes them a shade closer in the numbers than I think they actually are,>

But he chose to continue, no?

<I don't think at the numbers in a "black and white" manner because baseball is not a "black and white" sport.>

But can you impose on the numbers whatever you want?

<I do think Blyleven was as good as Sutton, if not better. He was as good as Drysdale, as good as Jenkins, maybe as good as Palmer.>

Don't strain yourself :hide:

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was hoping for a little mroe of your reasons

<Carlton's numbers suffer because he did not finish well, which, to me, is what makes them a shade closer in the numbers than I think they actually are,>

But he chose to continue, no?

But he's not in the HOF for how he finished. I think it hampers the quality of pitcher Carlton was. While I'm not ignoring how he finished, it gives him numbers that don't necessarily accurately reflect how good he was.

<I don't think at the numbers in a "black and white" manner because baseball is not a "black and white" sport.>

But can you impose on the numbers whatever you want?

No, only to an extent. I'm not dismissing the numbers, mind you. I just don't think they're an entirely accurate reflection of how good both pitchers were or weren't. I'm not going to dock Carlton too hard for hanging on, because what he did in 1987 shouldn't affect what he did between 1972 and 1982, or whatever

<I do think Blyleven was as good as Sutton, if not better. He was as good as Drysdale, as good as Jenkins, maybe as good as Palmer.>

Don't strain yourself :hide:


I'm not a strict numbers guy, so you're not going to get in depth analysis. I know what I saw, what I read, what I observed. I honestly don't think I need advanced stats to tell me Blyleven was a HOF'er or to justifiably make a comparison.

[leecemark]

--Steve Carlton won 4 CYA awards and is 4th all time in overall CYA voting. He is one of the 15 (or at worst 20) best pitchers of all time. Blyleven doesn't have to be as good as he was (and he wasn't) to qualify for the Hall of Fame.
-- I'm onboard with the Blyleven to Cooperstown campaign, but lets not make him out to be something he wasn't. Blyleven was amoung the best pitchers in his league for a long time. So was Carlton. The difference is Carlton WAS the best pitcher in his league (at least) several times while Blyleven never was.

[RuthMayBond]

The difference is Carlton WAS the best pitcher in his league (at least) several times while Blyleven never was.You might want to take a look at 1973 again :think:

[leecemark]

--2nd in ERA (1st in ERA+) and 4th in IP certainly makes him a contender for that season. He deserved better than the 7th place finish he got in the CYA voting, but he is hardly slam dunk #1. It was one of his 2 All Star appearances though!
--In any case, Blyleven was never regarded as the best pitcher in his league - or particularly close to it for that matter. The perception didn't do him justice, but it is smething to consider. He is a worthy Hall of Famer, but it would be tough (well impossible) to convince me he should be considered an inner circle type guy. Carlton is an inner circle pitcher.

[RuthMayBond]

--2nd in ERA (1st in ERA+) and 4th in IP certainly makes him a contender for that season.

--In any case, Blyleven was never regarded as the best pitcher in his league - or particularly close to it for that matter. The perception didn't do him justice, but it is smething to consider. So let's perpetuate the misconception :crazy

[DoubleX]

I think the comparison between Carlton and Blyleven is closer than a lot of people think, but I won't be the one to make the argument that Blyleven was better or equal to Blyleven. Carlton really stands out at peak, and that's saying something because Blyleven's peak was pretty good (once you look past his w/l record). I agree with Mark in that there were a few seasons there where Carlton really stood out as the best pitcher in baseball and really looked like an all time great. Blyleven on the other hand had a couple of seasons where he'd deserve to be in the best pitcher conversation, but he never stood out like Carlton did at peak.

Interesting to note though, when you get past the 5 best years of each player, Blyleven starts to look better and better when compared to Carlton. Carlton was more inconsistent and didn't have as many peak years as Blyleven. For instance, Carlton followed up his terrific 182 ERA+ in 1972 with a mediocre 97 ERA+ in 1973. One might argue that Carlton's workload caused this inconsistency, but Blyleven actually averaged slightly more IP per 162 (245.3 to 244.7), though it's offset by the fact that Carlton pitched about 250 more innings in his career. Anyway, when you look at their entire careers and the fact that Blyleven had a longer peak, that's where the comparison becomes closer, IMO. But, the heights Carlton reached still put him ahead, in my book.

Here's a look at their top 15 ERA+ years:

Carlton Blyleven Difference
182 158 +24 – Carlton
164 151 +13 – Carlton
162 144 +18 – Carlton
153 142 +11 – Carlton
150 140 +10 – Carlton
126 134 + 8 – Blyleven
119 129 + 10 – Blyleven
117 127 +10 – Blyleven
116 126 +10 – Blyleven
114 125 +11 – Blyleven
111 123 +12 – Blyleven
110 119 +9 – Blyleven
105 118 +13 – Blyleven
105 115 +10 - Blyleven

[curveball]

1973 pretty much sums up how little respect Blyleven got during his career. He was arguably the best pitcher in the AL that year. He got one lousy point in the Cy Young voting.

His detractors always point to his low Cy Young vote totals, few all star selections, and low career winning %. It wouldn't take long to look at his best seasons to see that he got virtually no respect from the voters. Neutral wins says that his career record would have been 325-227, something that makes more sense than his actual record when you see how good his era was for his career.

When I see Bob Gibson's record of 22-9 in 1968, and his era of 1.12, I ask myself how he could have lost so many games. He was the losing pitcher pitcher in more than 25% of his games. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to assume that the reason was he must have gotten some really lousy run support in a lot of his starts. With average run support, he would have been 28-4.

Too many people harp on Blyleven's low Cy Young vote totals, few all star selections, and low career winning %. Why don't they take some time to look at his individual seasons. If they take the time, and still agree that he wasn't shafted in Cy Young voting most of his career, don't want to believe that his very good lifetime era should have been closer to a neutralized 325-227 than his actual 287-250 record, and believe that he only had 2 all-star calibre seasons, then go ahead and say he is undeserving of enshrinement. The problem is that most people haven't even taken a closer look at his credentials, and keep promoting misconceptions about him.

[Mike Hoban]

Bert Blyleven has HOF credentials - there is no doubt about that. But that does not mean that his career was as good as Bob Gibson or Steve Carlton.

The NEWS HOF Gauge has Gibson as the #11 starting pitcher of the century (with a score of 273), Carlton as #13 (272) and Blyleven as #24 (248).

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

[ElHalo]

About where I've got them, too, except that it's pointless to be a "small Hall" guy when the reality is so much different. What we're debating is whether Blyleven belongs in the actual Hall of Fame, not our respective personal halls. And the line for that honor is somewhere south of Perry and Blyleven.
And, again, it comes down to the "yeah, but he's better than Jesse Haines, and Haines is in the Hall!" argument. Yeah, Blyleven was absolutely better than Sutton, Wynn, Niekro, those guys. No, none of them belong in the Hall, and we don't need to compound the error by letting more guys who are borderline or worse in.

[curveball]

If you were to go by other measures, like career rsaa, then Blyleven is 344, Gibson 350, Carlton 282. PRAA has Blyleven 323, Carlton 264, and Gibson 329. PRAR has Blyleven 1546, Carlton 1509, and Gibson 1260. WARP3 has Blyleven 135.1, Carlton 137, and Gibson 120.7. JAWS has Carlton 104.3, Blyleven 100.2, and Gibson 98.5.

[plask_stirlac]

:crazy

<Of course some people just think of him as "Mr. Home Run Allowed">

It didn't seem to stop Robin Roberts :think:

I noticed this but didn't address it. Ridiculous! I know the Whiz Kids were ultra-cool, but they didn't win the World Series as every Phillies fan knows, that was broken in 1980.

Blyleven has two rings as a main pitcher! If we're using shallow measures, why does Roberts get in and not Blyleven? He could go 300-325 IP as well, a complete game and shutout machine with some hangers for home runs but not derailing him.

Why do guys like Blyleven get derogated for allowing home runs, but the same people never praise anyone for allowing few? It might be mentioned by a "stats guy" or about Maddux. Give Oswalt and Kevin Brown (okay, PEDs now but before) and Carl Hubbell some credit then.

[Chickazoola]

I think everyone here has missed the very obvious: Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame because he is Dutch.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think everyone here has missed the very obvious: Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame because he is Dutch.

Yeah, Hans Wagner more than fills the quota.

[plask_stirlac]

Is Paul Molitor a compiler? Does he have 5 really excellent seasons? 5 very good ones, sure, but Manny Ramirez has 5 very good ones from 7-11, Hank Aaron has 5 very good ones just tucked away.

[leecemark]

--Molitor would have had a much tougher time making it and quite possibly wouldn't have without 3,000 hits. NEEDing to reach a milestone to make it is a definate sign you are a compiler. No way Molitor lasted to 3,000 hits or came anywhere close to Cooperstown had he played in the pre-DH era.

[Los Bravos]

Molitor, like his teammate Yount, was also always a writer's darling.

[jaxxr]

Probably somewhat late in response, however in reading the thread I see no mention of a very "odd" fact regarding Blyleven,

Please allow me to enter this for potential discussion,

Bert was a very fine pitcher, no one questions that, he suffers in HOF voting from only one title in the popular pitcher's triple crown stats, for all of his 22 seasons. Also the "magic" 20 game victory mark was reached only once, and the "mystical" 300 wins, were not obtained. Irrespective of those HOF voters, and whatever criteria they enjoy, I am truly puzzled by the following;

The baseball all star game selects its members from fans, and /or players-managers, depending on the year. I do believe the leagues' manager picks the 9 or 10 hurlers though.
Thus, the pitchers are selected by peers, men active in the game, aware of non-stat prowess, as well as the numbers. A pitching selection is perhaps a bit more easy, as there are many more hurlers chosen, than for a specific position.

In 22 MLB seasons, Bly was considered among the best 9 or 10 pitchers in just his own league, exactly TWICE.

Unbelievable 2nd half dominance ? Somehow overlooked quite often ? Baseball people don't know good pitchers ?

This absence or shortage of selections, as it did really happen, makes me wonder if the HOF is due. I will concur that Bert is better than some already in, however they got in at earlier times, Rube Marquard, for instance, about 35 years ago, while holding a consecutive game mark, the player base changes, evaluation methods change, perceptions change, and as posted prior,

"And, again, it comes down to the "yeah, but he's better than Jesse Haines, and Haines is in the Hall!" argument. Yeah, Blyleven was absolutely better than Sutton, Wynn, Niekro, those guys. No, none of them belong in the Hall, and we don't need to compound the error by letting more guys who are borderline or worse in."

[Freakshow]

Yeah, Blyleven was absolutely better than Sutton, Wynn, Niekro, those guys... we don't need to compound the error by letting more guys who are borderline or worse in.
I agree with this. Show me a better pitcher than Bert who's not in the HOF. There isn't one. And, as you admit, there are many pitchers in the Hall not as good as Blyleven. When you look at the evidence, there is no logical argument to exclude him from the Hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Probably somewhat late in response, however in reading the thread I see no mention of a very "odd" fact regarding Blyleven,

Please allow me to enter this for potential discussion,

Bert was a very fine pitcher, no one questions that, he suffers in HOF voting from only one title in the popular pitcher's triple crown stats, for all of his 22 seasons. Also the "magic" 20 game victory mark was reached only once, and the "mystical" 300 wins, were not obtained. Irrespective of those HOF voters, and whatever criteria they enjoy, I am truly puzzled by the following;

The baseball all star game selects its members from fans, and /or players-managers, depending on the year. I do believe the leagues' manager picks the 9 or 10 hurlers though.
Thus, the pitchers are selected by peers, men active in the game, aware of non-stat prowess, as well as the numbers. A pitching selection is perhaps a bit more easy, as there are many more hurlers chosen, than for a specific position.

In 22 MLB seasons, Bly was considered among the best 9 or 10 pitchers in just his own league, exactly TWICE.

Unbelievable 2nd half dominance ? Somehow overlooked quite often ? Baseball people don't know good pitchers ?

This absence or shortage of selections, as it did really happen, makes me wonder if the HOF is due. I will concur that Bert is better than some already in, however they got in at earlier times, Rube Marquard, for instance, about 35 years ago, while holding a consecutive game mark, the player base changes, evaluation methods change, perceptions change, and as posted prior,

"And, again, it comes down to the "yeah, but he's better than Jesse Haines, and Haines is in the Hall!" argument. Yeah, Blyleven was absolutely better than Sutton, Wynn, Niekro, those guys. No, none of them belong in the Hall, and we don't need to compound the error by letting more guys who are borderline or worse in."


What's wrong with Niekro?

Just how restricted is your Hall?

The "he's better than . . . so . . . " argument is not one you really see on this site too much. At least, not from the vast majority of regular posters.

The popularity contest that is the all-star selection process is an argument but the counter arguments we see thorughout this thread and throughout this site via actual threads on the subject and endless hijackings of other threads are stronger.

[DoubleX]

It is interesting that Blyleven was elected to the All Star game just twice, but I believe even managers/players have traditionally over-emphasized the importance of a pitcher's record. Back in Blyleven's prime, it may have actually been a little more fair to do so as starters generally went deeper into games than they do now. Still, Blyleven's records hardly ever indicative of how well he pitched during his peak years with the Twins. He got a lot of losses and no decisions that by right a pitcher deserves to win (including a number when he pitched 9 or 10 innings and gave up just a couple of runs or less). So with the perception of a pitcher being historically to his number of wins, Blyleven never really got his due respect because he didn't win as much as much as deserved, and it was a spill over effect.

I really believe Blyleven is one of the unluckiest pitchers, if not the unluckiest, of all time. During his career, his teams didn't support him, so he was unlucky in that respect. That carried over into him having a record that didn't do justice to how well he pitched. So he was unlucky in that respect. That carried over into people not recognizing how well he pitched and overlooking him due to an over-emphasis on record. So he was unlucky in that respect. And he continues to be unlucky in that people are holding this all against him by not electing him to the Hall. You put Blyleven on Sutton's Dodgers, and Blyleven may have had 320-330 wins. Blyleven was the better pitcher, Sutton was luckier, and that's why he's in the Hall and Blyleven isn't.

[RuthMayBond]

I really believe Blyleven is one of the unluckiest pitchers, if not the unluckiest, of all time. He's not Ned Garvin, but he was fairly unlucky

[henrich]

Blyleven 60 shuthouts and 3700 k's. He's overlooked and it should be rectified in time. I think both Carlton and Gibson are better, but Blyleven still lives on the same street they do, just a smaller house.

[jaxxr]

"Show me a better pitcher than Bert who's not in the HOF."

Smokey Joe Wood, perhaps ??

Anyway, regardless of that possibility,
what about those AS selections, or rather lack thereof ?
Why did not the baseball savy managers of his time, find Bert, with 22 seasonal opportunities, good enough to be considered among the top 9 or 10 in just his own league, only two times ???

One can cry the HOF uses unreal standards, maybe rightfully so, but just a mere coincidence the actual active baseball men from his own time era, also used unreal standards ???
Is it truly reasonable to assume the casual, or ardent baseball fan, is a better talent judge than professional baseball writers, major league team executives, and former professional baseball players, guys who actually made their living, evaluating baseball talent ???

[Captain Cold Nose]

"Show me a better pitcher than Bert who's not in the HOF."

Smokey Joe Wood, perhaps ??

Anyway, regardless of that possibility,
what about those AS selections, or rather lack thereof ?
Why did not the baseball savy managers of his time, find Bert, with 22 seasonal opportunities, good enough to be considered among the top 9 or 10 in just his own league, only two times ???

One can cry the HOF uses unreal standards, maybe rightfully so, but just a mere coincidence the actual active baseball men from his own time era, also used unreal standards ???
Is it truly reasonable to assume the casual, or ardent baseball fan, is a better talent judge than professional baseball writers, major league team executives, and former professional baseball players, guys who actually made their living, evaluating baseball talent ???


The baseball-savvy managers were trying to think up ways to give a GG to a guy who took the field 28 times in a season.

Can you point out where players and executives have actually said anything negative about Blyleven in regards to his candidacy? I'm not sure why you've mentioned them unless there is evidence they share your view about Blyleven.

Is ASG appearances the only argument you have against Blyleven? Robin Yount made all of three ASG, yet he got in first ballot. Seems that doesn't hold too much water.

Does the three or four seasons Wood had as a top starter trump Blyleven's much longer tenure?

Do you realize it is fairly apparent, based on the momentum Blyleven has gained the past couple years, he did just top 60%, the writers will vote him in.

[henrich]

"Show me a better pitcher than Bert who's not in the HOF."

Smokey Joe Wood, perhaps ??

Anyway, regardless of that possibility,
what about those AS selections, or rather lack thereof ?
Why did not the baseball savy managers of his time, find Bert, with 22 seasonal opportunities, good enough to be considered among the top 9 or 10 in just his own league, only two times ???

One can cry the HOF uses unreal standards, maybe rightfully so, but just a mere coincidence the actual active baseball men from his own time era, also used unreal standards ???
Is it truly reasonable to assume the casual, or ardent baseball fan, is a better talent judge than professional baseball writers, major league team executives, and former professional baseball players, guys who actually made their living, evaluating baseball talent ???

Of those not in the HOF that are better than Blyleven the list is IMO, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson R. All of whom are not eligible. I have to go to page 2 to find Smokey Joe Wood. He sits nestled nicely between Dave Stewart and Johnny Sain-no slouches, but not a Blyleven.

[jalbright]

Or were baseball men of the time captives of their own myths? Ever heard of the expression "can't see the forest for the trees?" History has shown us that baseball men, like the rest of us, have that failing. Sometimes, the perspective of history and study can be superior to those "on the ground" at the time. We can't see what they saw, but the perspective of history also allows us to see what they missed. Winning first-half records have been the driving force in All-Star pitching selections since I was a kid back in Blyleven's day, if not earlier. We've established that Bert didn't get a lot of help from his teams in that regard. Thus, I don't think it shocking that he was selected so rarely. If there were other points to support the "only 2 all-star argument", though, I might still give it more weight than I do when the mountain of the remaining evidence lines up on Bert's side.

[Freakshow]

"Show me a better pitcher than Bert who's not in the HOF."

Smokey Joe Wood, perhaps ??

Hmm. We can't know how many all-star games Mr. Wood would've made. Surely, not more than three.

Anyway, we can compare how those writes supported Wood and Bly for the HOF. Here's Wood's record:

Joe Wood
Year Votes PCT
1937 13 6.5%
1938 6 2.3%
1939 2 0.7%
1942 1 0.4%
1947 29 18.0%
1948 5 4.1%
1950 1 0.6%
1951 5 2.2%
This pales next to Blyleven's totals. You'll be quick to point out, I'm sure, that Wood's competition for vote's was much tougher. OK who was finishing ahead of Wood in the HOF voting? We'll look at the years he was well-supported.

1937: A pretty strong showing for Wood, tied for 29th with Marquard and Baker. Still, that was behind non-HOFers Lou Criger, Hal Chase and Johnny Kling, as well as trailing HOF poor sisters Pennock, Tinker, Youngs, Bender, Schalk and Evers. The voting results are so at-odds with modern analysis that no reliable conclusions can be drawn as to Wood's quality.

1947: The rules were changed to cut off players retired for 30 years-plus, causing Wood and the other holdovers to surge in the voting. Wood finished 18th, behind 17 hall of famers. As we can see, this was an anomalous finish for Wood; were there outside circumstances that year that brought his name to the public eye? Again, he finished behind such HOF "mistakes" as Youngs, Schalk, Bender, and Pennock.

In any cause, relying on popularity contests to ascribe quality, even a poll of presumed experts, is a thin basis for a hall of fame case.

[jaxxr]

Perhaps, my view is a bit unclear,
I do feel Bert is actually HOF worthy, not a "must- have" type, but would seem a reasonable addition. Not very strongly opinionated either way, though.

I simply find it almost impossible to understand why his peers considered him only two times to be among the season's top 9 or 10 hurlers in just his own league !!!
That aspect, also makes me wonder if the HOF voters and/or the CY voters, were aware of things not really apparent to the "fan".

Robin Yount was a 3 time AS, as a position player, harder to make the AS team than as a pitcher, but, plus, much more lasting "fame", as he also won two MVP awards.

Smokey Joe Wood did have a somewhat shorter career, than many, however, he did post a 34-5 mark one single awesome HOF type season. Also, his career adjusted ERA+ numbers, are 5th best of any starting pitcher ever, an awesome HOF type lifetime mark.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Perhaps, my view is a bit unclear,
I do feel Bert is actually HOF worthy, not a "must- have" type, but would seem a reasonable addition. Not very strongly opinionated either way, though.

I simply find it almost impossible to understand why his peers considered him only two times to be among the season's top 9 or 10 hurlers in just his own league !!!
That aspect, also makes me wonder if the HOF voters and/or the CY voters, were aware of things not really apparent to the "fan".

Robin Yount was a 3 time AS, as a position player, harder to make the AS team than as a pitcher, but, plus, much more lasting "fame", as he also won two MVP awards.

Smokey Joe Wood did have a somewhat shorter career, than many, however, he did post a 34-5 mark one single awesome HOF type season. Also, his career adjusted ERA+ numbers, are 5th best of any starting pitcher ever, an awesome HOF type lifetime mark.

That's it, though. I don't think ASG appearances is an accurate reflection of what his peers thought about him. It's still based on a partial season and does have a lot to do with having x amount of representatives per team. Blyleven had his best years with Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Minnesota while being a good pitcher in the middle of the rotation for California. Those were teams that weren't going to have a lot of players in the game or had offensive reps mostly, and with Blyleven being such a hard luck pitcher who was usually better than his record, selections were going to be hard to come by.

If possible, Wood is Koufax with a shorter peak. That's a fairly big strike that Blyleven doesn't have to deal with. He might have been better at his best, but he's not a better HOF candidate.

[Freakshow]

I simply find it almost impossible to understand why his peers considered him only two times to be among the season's top 9 or 10 hurlers in just his own league !!!
That aspect, also makes me wonder if the HOF voters and/or the CY voters, were aware of things not really apparent to the "fan".
Welcome to the weird world of award voting, where you'll find a great number of results to be unfathomable! In my experience, it's the opposite, that fans are aware of IMPORTANT things not really apparent to the "writer".
Robin Yount was a 3 time AS, as a position player, harder to make the AS team than as a pitcher,
The exact opposite is true. All the leaders in most all-star games are position players. Pitchers get left off for things that position players don't have to deal with - poor team support and needing rest before pitching, to name two.
Smokey Joe Wood did have a somewhat shorter career, than many, however, he did post a 34-5 mark one single awesome HOF type season. Also, his career adjusted ERA+ numbers, are 5th best of any starting pitcher ever, an awesome HOF type lifetime mark.
Terry Forster hit .397 in his career, "an awesome HOF type lifetime mark." Oh, too few appearances to make a credible HOF case? Exactly! Wood would have, by far, the shortest career of any HOF pitcher. His five years as an average corner OF add little to his resume.

[KCGHOST]

There are no eligible pitchers for HoF election than Blyleven. Smoky Joe doesn't even have 1500 IP's to his credit. You really want to elect a starting pitcher to the HoF with that few actual innings??

Blyleven's SNWL record is 313-224 (.583).

Bert's a tough sell. Other than his early year's his career flew under the radar as he played in Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Texas, Cleveland and Anaheim.

[Paul Wendt]

All the leaders in most all-star games are position players. Pitchers get left off for things that position players don't have to deal with - poor team support and needing rest before pitching, to name two.
Of course a contending team (most teams, in July) with an ace pitcher should start him on the weekend before the all-star game and again late next week. From what you say I infer that that commonly happens and that that pitcher is not named an all-star.

When did the timing of their work begin to cost all-star selections? I don't recall knowing that it was a factor when I was young and I wonder whether it was one. Has there been a change --perhaps a later deadline for selecting the pitchers or consultations by the All-Star game manager with the team managers in his league?

--
Great career position players commonly make the all-star team every season that is a notable downer during the spring, and occasionally some of those downers. Pitchers commonly make the all-star team only if they put up a very good half-season that spring and most of the all-star pitchers have enjoyed a great half-seasons. Even if there were no reliance on W-L to identify the spring's best pitchers, that focus on this spring's work would make pitcher all-star selections variable.

spring
noun
Union {April, May, June}

[Los Bravos]

What's wrong with Niekro?He was old, he threw a silly pitch, he looked funny...you're not going to get much more than that, other than that nonsense about being a "compiler", from anyone dissing Phil.

[jaxxr]

I still wonder,
So many AS snubs, I just cant brush it off as easy as others may. Has any pitcher, post 1934, now in the HOF, ever been selected as few as only two times for the All-Star Game ?

By the way, guys many fans herein feel were lesser hurlers than Bert, Don Sutton was picked 4 times, Phil Niekro 5 times

Voters might enjoy triple crown stat league leaders, Blyleven has one K title, Sutton has one ERA title, Niekro has one K, one ERA, and two Win titles.

Rating systems, Black Ink and HOF Monitor rate Niekro as the best of those 3, while Gray Ink and HOF Standard rate Sutton as the top from the trio.

So in summary,
The Cy Young and MVP voters never though Bert was the best.
The HOF voters, and The all star voters got it wrong, they dont appeciate Bert as much as Sutton and Niekro.
Also, Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF monitor, and HOF Standard, dont rate Bert as better than Sutton and / or Niekro.

[STLCards2]

I still wonder,
So many AS snubs, I just cant brush it off as easy as others may. Has any pitcher, post 1934, now in the HOF, ever been selected as few as only two times for the All-Star Game ?

By the way, guys many fans herein feel were lesser hurlers than Bert, Don Sutton was picked 4 times, Phil Niekro 5 times

Voters might enjoy triple crown stat league leaders, Blyleven has one K title, Sutton has one ERA title, Niekro has one K, one ERA, and two Win titles.

Rating systems, Black Ink and HOF Monitor rate Niekro as the best of those 3, while Gray Ink and HOF Standard rate Sutton as the top from the trio.

So in summary,
The Cy Young and MVP voters never though Bert was the best.
The HOF voters, and The all star voters got it wrong, they dont appeciate Bert as much as Sutton and Niekro.
Also, Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF monitor, and HOF Standard, dont rate Bert as better than Sutton and / or Niekro.


1. I think Fergie Jenkins only had 2 or 3. This shows how little All-Star voting should ever be considered when evaluating players' careers.

2. For the gazillioanth, billionth, quadradillainth time, Black Ink and Gray Ink. do not, never have, and were not created with the intintion of ever showing who was better. The sole purpose was to gauge the likelihood of election based on what voters have liked in the past -not deservedness. This is straight from the creators mouth. The fact that Blyleven is below Niekro and Sutton on the HOFM and HOFS goes along well with the fact that Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame.

[jaxxr]

Jenkins does have 3 AS games, and one CY Young award, both more than Bert has.

I am not saying the AS game count, or the CY Young awards, or Gray Ink, or the HOF voters, or any other professional organization, is the most proper way to evluate a player,....

What I am saying is, perhaps the glaring AS game selection shortage, coupled with the fact that NO OTHER generally accepted baseball evaluation body, feels Bert is a clear HOFer, is just cause to reconsider my original opinion.

[RuthMayBond]

Welcome to the weird world of award voting, where you'll find a great number of results to be unfathomable! In my experience, it's the opposite, that fans are aware of IMPORTANT things not really apparent to the "writer".
Which team do YOU want?

Non All-Stars
P-John Tudor, Jose Rijo, Tim Wakefield, Mike Jackson
C-Rick Dempsey
1B-Hal Trosky
2B-Billy Doran
3B-Richie Hebner
SS-Billy Rogell
OF-Wally Berger

All-Stars (some multiple)
P-Mike Williams 2x, Tyler Green, Randy Gumpert
C-Rollie Hemsley 5x
1B-Ron Coomer
2B-Glenn Beckert 4x
3B-Scott Cooper 2x
SS-Eddie Miller 7x, Billy Hunter
OF-Oris Hockett

[RuthMayBond]

There are no eligible pitchers for HoF election than Blyleven. Smoky Joe doesn't even have 1500 IP's to his credit. You really want to elect a starting pitcher to the HoF with that few actual innings??
Then you should put in Gene Garber

[STLCards2]

Jenkins does have 3 AS games, and one CY Young award, both more than Bert has.

I am not saying the AS game count, or the CY Young awards, or Gray Ink, or the HOF voters, or any other professional organization, is the most proper way to evluate a player,....

What I am saying is, perhaps the glaring AS game selection shortage, coupled with the fact that NO OTHER generally accepted baseball evaluation body, feels Bert is a clear HOFer, is just cause to reconsider my original opinion.

I wasn't comparing Jenkins to Blyleven, I was only thinking of a HOF pitcher with as few (or almost as few) All-Star appearances as Blyleven. I couldn't remember if he had 2 or 3.

I never claimed you though HOFM, etc. was the "most proper way?" You said that those tools ranked Sutton and Niekro as "better." The term "better" describes ability or most productive. Whether you agree with those measures or not doesn't matter - the tool still isn't intended to list who is "better."

You are right, the lack of All-Star games is hurting his chances. However, even though no generally accepted baseball evaluation body feels he is a HOFer, 60% of the official writers do feel he is worthy, well over half and rising over the bast many years. Virtualy all of the growing-like-wild-flowers saber community believes Bert is a worthy candidate as well. Bert has been severley snubbed, but the love for Bert is growning, and he migh get elected one of these days. Bert isn't quite as "picked" on by the average voter as people want to make it sound.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (132) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 237 (25) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (38) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (68) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Act.- Denotes rank among active players, Car. - Denotes career rank
Click on the Car, Act or Year to see the career, active, or league leaderboard.


Similar Pitchers View in Pop-up

Compare Stats
Don Sutton (914) *
Gaylord Perry (909) *
Fergie Jenkins (890) *
Tommy John (889)
Robin Roberts (876) *
Tom Seaver (864) *
Jim Kaat (854)
Early Wynn (844) *
Phil Niekro (844) *
Steve Carlton (840) *


I don't know about anyone else here, but this stuff alone puts Blyleven in the MIDDLE of the HOF. Easily.

I've complained about Blyleven's snub in light of Jim Bunning's selection. What puzzles me even more is Blyleven's snub in light of the voters' CLEAR historical preference for power pitchers. Blyleven was 3rd in career Ks for his career, and he exceeded Walter Johnson's mark (although he was not the first to do so, of course). The more I look at this snub, the more outrageous it looks.

Here's Blyleven's HOF voting results:


Bert BlylevenY

Year Votes PCT
1998 83 17.5%
1999 70 14.1%
2000 87 17.4%
2001 121 23.5%
2002 124 26.3%
2003 145 29.2%
2004 179 35.4%
2005 211 40.9%
2006 277 53.3%
2007 260 47.7%
2008 336 61.9%

I can't think of anyone who got as close as Blyleven in year 11 that DIDN'T make it all the way to the HOF.

[Freakshow]

What I am saying is, perhaps the glaring AS game selection shortage, coupled with the fact that NO OTHER generally accepted baseball evaluation body, feels Bert is a clear HOFer, is just cause to reconsider my original opinion.
I think a large part of the answer is what has been suggested: Blyleven was a second-half pitcher. The numbers bear this out.

1st half: 150-140 3.47
2nd half: 137-110 3.12

Here is his W-L record at the end of June in each of his full seasons:

1971 7-10
1972 8-9
1973 10-8
1974 6-10
1975 5-3
1976 6-8
1977 6-8
1978 7-5
1979 5-3
1980 2-7
1984 6-3
1985 7-7
1986 6-7
1987 7-6
1988 7-6
1989 7-2
total 102-102

[Captain Cold Nose]

Jenkins does have 3 AS games, and one CY Young award, both more than Bert has.

I am not saying the AS game count, or the CY Young awards, or Gray Ink, or the HOF voters, or any other professional organization, is the most proper way to evluate a player,....

What I am saying is, perhaps the glaring AS game selection shortage, coupled with the fact that NO OTHER generally accepted baseball evaluation body, feels Bert is a clear HOFer, is just cause to reconsider my original opinion.

So when the writers do elect him in the next couple years, which is likely considering his pat gains, do they need to apologize to you because they looked beyond your ASG argument? Or maybe does it show your ASG argument isn't as strong a counterargument as you think.

If you going to use that basic an argument, the man retired third all time in K's and top 10 in shutouts. I think that weighs far heavier than your ASG argument, which has been countered, at elast. You've yet to counter anything else except for pointing out other HOFers with similar numbers. So if all these similar players to Blyleven, not exactly bad choices, really, are in, what reason is there to keep Bert out?

Not too much longer, anyway. 2011 is my guess.

RMB, unless you were only quoting him but not addressing him, you need to read KCGhosts's comment again. Your constant need to be flippant caused you to missed the boat on this one entirely.

[jaxxr]

Interesting points from all, however,

I am still reconsidering my opinion, which originally, or at least 3-4 months ago, was positive for Bert as HOF material.

Has any HOF pitcher, from 1934 forward, ever had so few AS selections ??
I would feel the "slow-starter" concept is plausible, still for 20/22 of his career ?

THe HOF does use standards which one can not easily quantify, charcter, leauge leaders, post-season awards, maybe even AS game selections. The raw numbers dont always work alone.
"Fame" is a somehat vague concept, a famous 1960 WS HR certainly helped Bill Maz., but breaking Babe Ruth's record was not famous enough for Roger Maris. Regardless of statsical merit, or lack thereof, I am quite confident Blyleven would be in the HOF already, had he played 5 or 6 years with a famous, major maket team.

[RuthMayBond]

RMB, unless you were only quoting him but not addressing him, you need to read KCGhosts's comment again. Your constant need to be flippant caused you to missed the boat on this one entirely.I was only quoting him (and agreeing with him). Maybe your need to admonish me caused you to "miss the boat"

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was only quoting him (and agreeing with him). Maybe your need to admonish me caused you to "miss the boat"

Maybe. Thanks for the clarification.

[RuthMayBond]

Maybe. Thanks for the clarification.Any time. And sorry about the ambiguity

[Captain Cold Nose]

Any time. And sorry about the ambiguity

No need, there's a lot of guilt to go around in regards to that, and I am certainly party to that.

Blyleven is a connundrum. He has advantages over guys like Tommy John and Jim Kaat, but they have their advantages over him, as well. John and Kaat were probably more famous in their careers, they have the 20-win seasons, too. But the sabr community favors Blyleven, and that seems to enhance his chances over the other two in the voting. It's a sign the voters are coming around, albeit slowly.

He's not a slam dunk. 300 wins would have gotten him in a few years ago, for sure.

[RuthMayBond]

John and Kaat were probably more famous in their careers, they have the 20-win seasons, too. If the BBWWA (alleged students of the game) can't separate actual baseball skill from glam, then parts of the Hall will continue to be a joke

[Captain Cold Nose]

If the BBWWA (alleged students of the game) can't separate actual baseball skill from glam, then parts of the Hall will continue to be a joke

Well, Blyleven has reached voting levels John and Kaat did not get close to. Glam only goes so far.

They are students of the game as much as they can allow. Remember, though, their actual day job is to cover their particular team and focus on them. Which is not the cakewalk some seem to think it is. Voting for the HOF is something that should get effort, but if someone expects them to focus all time and energy on what is pretty much a museum honor, they're going to remain disappointed.

[DoubleX]

Voting for the HOF is something that should get effort, but if someone expects them to focus all time and energy on what is pretty much a museum honor, they're going to remain disappointed.

If they're not up to the task, they shouldn't be voting or the Hall should change it's criteria to get a more educated electorate.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If they're not up to the task, they shouldn't be voting or the Hall should change it's criteria to get a more educated electorate.

It's not that they're not up to the task, but it's not their focus in life. If you take it for what it is, I don't think they're doing horribly. No more than anyone else would.

Any electorate, no matter who they are, is going to have issues. Everyone has biases, which will come into play. Even on this site there is disagreement even among the most scholarly.

[jaxxr]

It is a Hall of Fame,

Not merely a hall of record breakers, not a hall of always the best statistical performers, not even for the most famous or popular.

It is imperfect, based on one's own opinions. frame of references, and certainly, personal favorites.

Quite hard to judge objectively, and without empathy, is it better or worse, with the lack of Shoeles Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, and perhaps Bert Blyleven ???

[Paul Wendt]

I think a large part of the answer is what has been suggested: Blyleven was a second-half pitcher. The numbers bear this out.

1st half: 150-140 3.47
2nd half: 137-110 3.12

Here is his W-L record at the end of June in each of his full seasons:
. . .
total 102-102

Does the all-star break define "first half" and "second half"?


I've complained about Blyleven's snub in light of Jim Bunning's selection. What puzzles me even more is Blyleven's snub in light of the voters' CLEAR historical preference for power pitchers.

1. A preference for Jim Bunning over Bert Blyleven would be a good example of preference for power pitchers.

2. The writers didn't elect Jim Bunning. They are electing Bert Blyleven and I doubt they will be interrupted before they finish the job.

[Paul Wendt]

They are students of the game as much as they can allow. Remember, though, their actual day job is to cover their particular team and focus on them. Which is not the cakewalk some seem to think it is.
Each of them held that job at one time and I suppose it is common to hold that job for more than the ten years which qualify a BBWAA member to vote in Cooperstown.

Does anyone know much about the demographical and occupational distribution of those who have been members for ten years or more? The organization probably has some demographic data. Occupational? I doubt anyone knows how many members have graduated from the beat or moved sideways to the football beat or even outside the sports section.

Several of the voters must now be people who have worked at baseball only during this time of little divisions and big batting. Several have learned the meanings of OnBase and Slugging when .400 and .600 have been routinely surpassed by the best batters.

[STLCards2]

Just because Blyleven is better than Bunning, does not mean that Bunning was a poor HOF selection. this isn;t directed to anybody here, but to all of the Bunning distractors wherever you are.

Look at Bunnings ERA+ and IP finishes:

1957 ERA+ 3
IP 1

1959 IP 2

1960 ERA+ 1
IP 5

1961 ERA+ 5
IP 3

1962 IP 3

1963 IP 8

1964 ERA+ 7
IP 4

1965 ERA+ 6
IP 6

1966 ERA+ 4
IP 2

1967 ERA+ 2
IP 1


Bunning was the best pitcher in the league in 1957 and 1967, and made a case for a top 2-3 pitcher in 1960, 1961, 1965, and 1966. Bunning was up against Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Sandy Koufax, Early Wynn along with other young stud pitchers like Seaver, Jenkens, Perry, and Niekro, so nobody can say "Yeah, but his league leaderships are tainted because of the competition etc. Bunning also played most of his career with poor teams, meaning he got very little help from his defense/offense.

Name me one pitcher who finishes so well in league leaderships in those two key areas (against such strong competion) who doesn't deserve election.

[curveball]

Focusing on the number of All-Star selections is one of the worst ways to rate a player. What you are doing is allowing others, particularly voters who may not be informed, to form opinions for you.

Instead, why not look at a certain player's career, and see for yourself whether they deserved to be an All-Star more often, or less often than they were actually selected. Remember too, that All-Star voting is only based on first half performance.

Blyleven was top 10 in adjusted era+ 12 times. Superficially, that indicates that he may have had 12 All-Star type seasons. 7 of those finishes were top 5 or better, so it could be safely argued that he had at least 7 All-Start caliber seasons.

How many pitchers can boast of 12 top 10 finishes in adjusted era+? Blyleven should be in the Hof, and in no way would he even be a lower tier member.

[Brad Harris]

Focusing on the number of All-Star selections is one of the worst ways to rate a player. What you are doing is allowing others, particularly voters who may not be informed, to form opinions for you.

Same is true of MVP, Cy Young, etc. awards

[AstrosFan]

Blyleven > Nolan Ryan. There, I said it. Ryan was a great pitcher, but Blyleven was better, both at his best and over his career.

[RuthMayBond]

Blyleven > Nolan Ryan. There, I said it. Ryan was a great pitcher, but Blyleven was better, both at his best and over his career.Dang, from an Astros fan :party::disbelief::applaud::nod::hyper::dance :highfive: :thumbsup:

[curveball]

Blyleven > Nolan Ryan. There, I said it. Ryan was a great pitcher, but Blyleven was better, both at his best and over his career.

That is a very valid argument, and one that is far from foolish, yet one was a first ballot Hofer, and the other is finally starting to get recognized.

[AstrosFan]

Dang, from an Astros fan :party::disbelief::applaud::nod::hyper::dance :highfive: :thumbsup:

Now, if I said who was my personal favorite, it'd be the Ryan Express, and it's not close. But I try not to let my personal feelings get in the way of my rankings of players.

[curveball]

Same is true of MVP, Cy Young, etc. awards

Absolutely. People too often make arguments for or against players based on flawed voting.

The thing that irritates me the most is someone will argue that so and so only made x number of All-Star teams, or only received marginal support in Cy Young voting throughout his career without forming his or her own opinion on the matter.

I would be more impressed if somebody said, "so and so only made x All-Star teams, but through my research, I believe he should have made more (or less).

[Paul Wendt]

Bunning also played most of his career with poor teams, meaning he got very little help from his defense/offense.

mediocre teams, few poor teams

team rank in final standings
5 5 5 4 5 4 ; 2 4 5 : Tigers 1955-1963 (8 teams before ";")
2 6 4 5 7 : Phillies 1964-1968 (10 teams). Bunning's own collapse was a big part, maybe all of that 1968 drop to 7th and below .500 with the Dodgers, Mets, Astros.

> very little help from his defense/offense

It's possible that the pitching staffs made below-average teams average and average-plus.

[RuthMayBond]

mediocre teams, few poor teams

team rank in final standings
5 5 5 4 5 4 ; 2 4 5 : Tigers 1955-1963 (8 teams before ";")
2 6 4 5 7 : Phillies 1964-1968 (10 teams). Bunning's own collapse was a big part, maybe all of that 1968 drop to 7th and below .500 with the Dodgers, Mets, Astros.

Two teams above fourth place, nine of fourteen fifth or lower, is not exactly a career of powerhouses

[DoubleX]

I might have posted this before, but here are some statistical comparisons among Blyleven and his Hall of Fame peers (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Niekro, Jenkins, Sutton, and Hunter). Of these players, I believe Blyleven is the only one who never played with the raised mound (though most of these guys played very little with the raised mound). When I look at this kind of stuff I find it very hard to understand how Blyleven isn't in or how Blyleven didn't have as much impact as his peers (as Jon Heyman likes to point out):

No. of Top 5 Raw ERA Finishes
1) Jim Palmer: 10
t2) Bert Blyleven: 7
t2) Tom Seaver: 7
t4) Steve Carlton: 5
t4) Nolan Ryan: 5
6) Don Sutton: 4
t7) Catfish Hunter: 3
t7) Phil Niekro: 3
t7) Gaylord Perry: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 0

No. of Top 10 Raw ERA Finishes
1) Tom Seaver: 13
2) Gaylord Perry: 11
t3)Bert Blyleven: 10
t3) Jim Palmer: 10
t5) Steve Carlton: 8
t5) Nolan Ryan: 8
t5) Don Sutton: 8
8) Phil Niekro: 4
t9) Catfish Hunter: 3
t9) Fergie Jenkins: 3

No. of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Carlton: 5
5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t6) Catfish Hunter: 3
t6) Phil Niekro: 3
t6) Don Sutton: 3
t9) Fergie Jenkins: 2
t9) Gaylord Perry: 2

No. of Top 10 ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 13
2) Bert Blyleven: 11
t3) Jim Palmer: 10
t3) Gaylord Perry: 10
t5) Steve Carlton: 7
t5) Phil Niekro: 7
t5) Nolan Ryan: 7
t5) Don Sutton: 7
9) Fergie Jenkins: 6
10) Catfish Hunter: 3

No. of 150 and Higher ERA+ Seasons
1) Steve Carlton: 5
t2) Jim Palmer: 4
t2) Tom Seaver: 4
4) Bert Blyleven: 3
t5) Phil Niekro: 2
t5) Don Sutton: 2
t7) Gaylord Perry: 1
t7) Nolan Ryan: 1
t9) Catfish Hunter: 0
t9) Fergie Jenkins: 0

No. of 130 and Higher ERA+ Seasons
1) Tom Seaver: 9
2) Jim Palmer: 8
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
4) Steve Cartlon: 5
t5) Phil Niekro: 4
t5) Gaylord Perry: 4
t5) Nolan Ryan: 4
t8) Catfish Hunter: 3
t8) Don Sutton: 3
10) Fergie Jenkins: 2

5 Year Peak ERA+ Average
1) Tom Seaver: 165.6
2) Steve Carlton: 162.2
3) Jim Palmer: 154.4
4) Phil Niekro: 149.4
5)Bert Blyleven: 149
6) Nolan Ryan: 148.8
7) Don Sutton: 143.6
8) Gaylord Perry: 142.8
9) Fergie Jenkins: 130.4
10) Catfish Hunter: 129.2

10 Year Peak ERA+ Average
1) Tom Seaver: 151
2) Jim Palmer: 142.2
3) Steve Carlton: 140.3
4) Bert Blyleven: 138.6
5) Phil Niekro: 135.2
6) Nolan Ryan: 134
7) Gaylord Perry: 133.1
8) Don Sutton: 129.2
9) Fergie Jenkins: 126
10) Catfish Hunter: 114.8 (and this is counting some pretty short seasons)

No. of Top 5 WHIP Finishes
1) Don Sutton: 10
2) Tom Seaver: 9
3) Bert Blyleven: 7
t4) Jim Palmer: 6
t4) Gaylord Perry: 6
t4) Nolan Ryan: 6
7) Steve Carlton: 5
t8) Catfish Hunter: 4
t8) Fergie Jenkins: 4
t8) Phil Niekro: 4

No. of Top 10 WHIP Finishes
1) Tom Seaver: 15
2) Don Sutton: 14
3) Fergie Jenkins: 13
4) Bert Blyleven: 11
5) Gaylord Perry: 10
t6) Jim Palmer: 9
t6) Nolan Ryan: 9
t8) Steve Carlton: 6
t8) Catfish Hunter: 6
10) Phil Niekro: 5

No. of Top 5 K Finishes
1) Nolan Ryan: 18
2) Bert Blyleven: 13
3) Steve Carlton: 12
t4) Fergie Jenkins: 9
t4) Tom Seaver: 9
6) Gaylord Perry: 7
7) Phil Niekro: 6
t8) Jim Palmer: 3
t8) Don Sutton: 3
10) Catfish Hunter: 1

No. of Top 10 K Finishes
1) Nolan Ryan: 20
2) Steve Carlton: 16
3) Bert Blyleven: 15
t4) Tom Seaver: 13
t4) Don Sutton: 13
t6) Fergie Jenkins: 12
t6) Gaylord Perry: 12
t8) Catfish Hunter: 7
t8) Phil Niekro: 7
t8) Jim Palmer: 7

Career Ks
1) Nolan Ryan: 5714
2) Steve Carlton: 4136
3) Bert Blyleven: 3701
4) Tom Seaver: 3640
5) Don Sutton: 3574
6) Gaylord Perry: 3534
7) Phil Niekro: 3342
8) Fergie Jenkins: 3192
9) Jim Palmer: 2212
10) Catfish Hunter: 2012

No. of Top 5 IP Seasons
1) Gaylord Perry: 10
2) Fergie Jenkins: 9
t3) Steve Carlton: 8
t3) Phil Niekro: 8
t3) Tom Seaver: 8
6)Bert Blyleven: 6
7) Jim Palmer: 5
8) Catfish Hunter: 4
t9) Nolan Ryan: 3
t9) Don Sutton: 3

No. of Top 10 IP Season
1) Steve Carlton: 14
2) Tom Seaver: 12
t3) Bert Blyleven: 11
t3) Phil Niekro: 11
t3) Gaylord Perry: 11
t6) Fergie Jenkins: 10
t6) Don Sutton: 10
8) Nolan Ryan: 9
9) Jim Palmer: 8
10) Catfish Hunter: 6

Career IP
1) Phil Niekro: 5405
2) Nolan Ryan: 5386
3) Gaylord Perry: 5351
4) Don Sutton: 5283
5) Steve Carlton: 5218
6) Bert Blyleven: 4970
7) Tom Seaver: 4783
8) Fergie Jenkins: 4501
9) Jim Palmer: 3948
10) Catfish Hunter: 3450

Shutouts
t1) Nolan Ryan: 61
t1) Tom Seaver: 61
3) Bert Blyleven: 60
4) Don Sutton: 58
5) Steve Carlton: 55
t6) Jim Palmer: 53
t6) Gaylord Perry: 53
8) Fergie Jenkins: 49
9) Phil Niekro: 45
10) Catfish Hunter: 42

Complete Games
1) Gaylord Perry: 303
2) Fergie Jenkins: 267
3) Steve Carlton: 254
4) Phil Niekro: 245
5) Bert Blyleven: 242
6) Tom Seaver: 231
7) Nolan Ryan: 222
8) Jim Palmer: 211
9) Catfish Hunter: 181
10) Don Sutton: 178

Average Ranking Here
1) Seaver: 2.44
2) Blyleven: 3.56
3) Carlton: 3.72
4) Ryan: 4.61
5) Perry: 4.94
6) Palmer: 5.17
7) Sutton: 5.72
8) Niekro: 5.83
9) Jenkins: 7.17
10) Hunter: 8.89

Of course the averages here are a little skewed, such as Ryan getting a big boost due to his Ks and Palmer getting knocked down for the same (as well as his lack of IP), but it's interesting nonetheless.

Anyway, this obviously doesn't tell the whole story, but it's pretty big picture touching on a lot of areas that we use to measure how well a pitcher is pitching, and it shows, IMO, that Blyleven was every bit as dominant as the standards set by his Hall of Fame peers.

[curveball]

Great post DoubleX, but the problem is that you missed an extremely important category, which was All-Star game appearances. lol

1. Seaver 11
2. Carlton 10
t3. Hunter 8
t3. Ryan 8
5. Palmer 6
t6. Perry 5
t6. Niekro 5
8. Sutton 4
9. Jenkins 3
10. Blyleven 2


By the way, Hunter made 3 all-star appearances while having an era+ of less than 100. :noidea

[DoubleX]

By the way, Hunter made 3 all-star appearances while having an era+ of less than 100. :noidea

Perception was heavily rooted in wins and losses. Hunter won a lot of games pitching for great teams. Blyleven got saddled with a lot of no decisions and losses in games he deserved to win. The spillover effect was that, as Jon Heyman would probably put it, Hunter was "impactful" and Blyleven was not. But without question, Blyleven was the vastly superior pitcher.

[jalbright]

Great post DoubleX, but the problem is that you missed an extremely important category, which was All-Star game appearances. lol

1. Seaver 11
2. Carlton 10
t3. Hunter 8
t3. Ryan 8
5. Palmer 6
t6. Perry 5
t6. Niekro 5
8. Sutton 4
9. Jenkins 3
10. Blyleven 2


By the way, Hunter made 3 all-star appearances while having an era+ of less than 100. :noidea

Please explain to me why this category is so extremely important that it outweighs the ones Double X did point to. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying this category should be ignored, but there's a huge amount of evidence on the other side, against this one outlier. There's just no way this one fact outweighs the others.

[Freakshow]

Does the all-star break define "first half" and "second half"?
Yes........

[Los Bravos]

I'm really stunned that Ferguson Jenkins only made three AS teams.

Looking at his stats, I see that he was left off in a year when he finished third in Cy Young voting and another when he finished second.:dismay:

[DoubleX]

Please explain to me why this category is so extremely important that it outweighs the ones Double X did point to. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying this category should be ignored, but there's a huge amount of evidence on the other side, against this one outlier. There's just no way this one fact outweighs the others.

I thought he was being sarcastic, no?

[curveball]

I thought he was being sarcastic, no?

I was being sarcastic.

[OleMissCub]

To add onto DoubleX's list:

Career WARP3
Bert Blyleven: 147.7
Tom Seaver: 146.6
Steve Carlton: 138.7
Nolan Ryan: 135.5
Phil Niekro: 132.9
Gaylord Perry: 130.9
Ferguson Jenkins: 128.5
Don Sutton: 106.9
Jim Palmer: 99.6
Catfish Hunter: 67.8

[Paul Wendt]

Two teams above fourth place, nine of fourteen fifth or lower, is not exactly a career of powerhouses
Someone said that Bunning played for poor teams.

Only four of 14 finished below .500 and the worst W-L record among those 14 teams was 71-83, .461, Detroit 1960.

The Phillies collapsed in 1969 but the future Senator personally dropped from ERA+ 149 to 75, one big contributing cause of the team collapse. The productive part of his career was over.

[Mike90]

I'm guessing this has already been covered, but does anyone know why Blyleven consistently posted mediocre records from 1970-1978 despite his great ERAs. Did he get less run support than his teammates? Was he unusually inconsistent or poor in the clutch? I really don't know.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm guessing this has already been covered, but does anyone know why Blyleven consistently posted mediocre records from 1970-1978 despite his great ERAs. Did he get less run support than his teammates? Was he unusually inconsistent or poor in the clutch? I really don't know.

Just a guess myself, but if Bllyleven was at the top of the rotation during that time, he was going up against guys like Seaver, Carlton, Jenkins, etc. He may have simply been getting outpitched during those games.

[DoubleX]

Just a guess myself, but if Bllyleven was at the top of the rotation during that time, he was going up against guys like Seaver, Carlton, Jenkins, etc. He may have simply been getting outpitched during those games.

Seaver and Carlton were in the NL for that entire stretch, so they would have only faced Blyleven in '78. He may have faced Jenkins from '74-'77 though, as Jenkins was in the AL during that time.

If this theory is right, Blyleven would have faced guys like Palmer, Hunter, Ryan, Tiant, and Perry ('72-'77).

I'm guessing this has already been covered, but does anyone know why Blyleven consistently posted mediocre records from 1970-1978 despite his great ERAs. Did he get less run support than his teammates? Was he unusually inconsistent or poor in the clutch? I really don't know.

I went through Blyleven's gamelogs of his first 5 years or so a couple of years ago, and the guy lost or got a no decision in a ton of games he should have won. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but he didn't get a win in something like two-dozen games during that time where he pitched at least 8 innings and gave up 2 runs or less, and there was a handful of games where he pitched 9 or 10 innings giving up 1 run or less and not getting a win. That shouldn't happen that often, and that right there is the 13 win difference that keeps him out of Cooperstown. So poor run support definitely seems to be an issue.

[Mike90]

Thanks. I couldn't understand why a great pitcher like Blyleven would post records like 17-17 with an 82-win team and 14-12 with a 94-team when he allowed a lot less runs than his teammates. Bert had an unusual amount of bad luck. Win-loss records are a pretty poor indicator of value for a pitcher anyways, although I don't think they should be completely overlooked.

[Mike90]

I give Blyleven the benefit of the doubt because of his postseason record (5-1, 2.47 ERA) and those two awesome seasons in '84 and '89. Plus he was a workhouse who was maybe kept in the game longer than he should have been. Pitching late into a lot of games when he was tired and didn't have his best stuff could have contributed to his huge amount of losses.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Seaver and Carlton were in the NL for that entire stretch, so they would have only faced Blyleven in '78. He may have faced Jenkins from '74-'77 though, as Jenkins was in the AL during that time.

If this theory is right, Blyleven would have faced guys like Palmer, Hunter, Ryan, Tiant, and Perry ('72-'77).



I went through Blyleven's gamelogs of his first 5 years or so a couple of years ago, and the guy lost or got a no decision in a ton of games he should have won. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but he didn't get a win in something like two-dozen games during that time where he pitched at least 8 innings and gave up 2 runs or less, and there was a handful of games where he pitched 9 or 10 innings giving up 1 run or less and not getting a win. That shouldn't happen that often, and that right there is the 13 win difference that keeps him out of Cooperstown. So poor run support definitely seems to be an issue.

For some reason, withiout thinking about it like my answer, I thought he was with Pittsburgh when I posted that. All cylinders lately.

[DoubleX]

Thanks. I couldn't understand why a great pitcher like Blyleven would post records like 17-17 with an 82-win team and 14-12 with a 94-team when he allowed a lot less runs than his teammates. Bert had an unusual amount of bad luck. Win-loss records are a pretty poor indicator of value for a pitcher anyways, although I don't think they should be completely overlooked.

You're right, W/L shouldn't be totally dismissed, particularly during Blyleven's time when the best pitchers routinely pitched late into games. Still, even that belies how good Blyleven was because he would pitch really late into games, give up 0, 1, or 2 runs, and not win.

I found a chart on this computer I made of his first four years. Here are all the starts he made in his first four seasons where he pitched at least 6 innings, giving up 2 ER or less or pitched at least 8 innings giving up 3 ER or less and didn't win:

6/10/1970: 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 3 K, 2 BB - No Decision
6/23/1970: 6 IP, 1 ER, 8 H, 7 K, 1 BB - No Decision
7/1/1970: 7 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 9 K, 1 BB - No Decision
7/9/1970: 6 IP, 2 ER, 6 H, 5 K, 1 BB - No Decision
9/8/1970: 8.1 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 8 K, 4 BB - Loss
9/16/1970: 6.2 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 10 K, 2 BB - Loss
9/30/1970: 8 IP, 1 ER, 5 H, 3 K, 4 BB

4/27/1971: 7 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 9 K, 1 BB, - Loss
6/19/1971: 8 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 7 K, 2 BB - No Decision
6/23/1971: 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 8 K, 2 BB - Loss
7/20/1971: 8 IP, 3 ER, 11 H, 9 K, 0 BB - No Decision
8/4/1971: 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 6 K, 3 BB - Loss
8/17/1971: 9 IP, 3 ER, 9 H, 6 K, 1 BB - Loss
9/1/1971: 10 IP, 0 ER, 5 H, 6 K, 1 BB - No Decision

4/15/1972: 6 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 1 K, 1 BB - Loss
5/13/1972: 9 IP, 3 ER, 7 H, 8 K, 1 BB - No Decision
6/4/1972: 7 IP, 2 ER, 2 H, 6 K, 1 BB - Loss
6/12/1972: 7 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 4 K, 2 BB - Loss
6/21/1972: 7 IP, 2 ER, 6 H, 7 K, 2 BB - Loss
7/8/1972: 10 IP, 0 ER, 8 H, 6 K, 2 BB - No Decision
7/21/1972: 7 IP, 1 ER, 3 H, 3 K, 1 BB - Loss
7/27/1972: 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 H, 5 K, 0 BB - Loss
8/19/1972: 6.2 IP, 2 ER, 6 H, 10 K, 3 BB - Loss
8/26/1972: 8.2 IP, 3 ER, 10 H, 5 K, 3 BB - No Decision
9/27/1972: 10.1 IP, 1 ER, 7 H, 9 K, 2 BB - Loss

4/14/1973: 9 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 8 K, 0 BB - Loss
4/18/1873: 9 IP, 3 ER, 9 H, 9 K, 1 BB - Loss
4/29/1973: 6 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 2 K, 2 BB - Loss
6/2/1973: 9 IP, 1 ER, 11 H, 7 K, 4 BB - No Decision
6/25/1973: 8 IP, 3 ER, 10 H, 10 K, 2 BB - Loss
8/9/1973: 9 IP, 2 ER, 8 H, 9 K, 2 BB - Loss
8/21/1973: 8.1 IP, 2 ER, 10 H, 3 K, 2 BB - Loss
8/26/1973: 7.2 IP, 3 ER, 9 H, 11 K, 0 BB - Loss
9/30/1973: 8 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 7 K, 2 BB - Loss

That's a lot of tough luck right there. 34 games in just 4 years where Blyleven really deserved to have won. Pitchers don't lose those kind of games as often as Blyleven did. As a consequence, his record belied how well he pitched, and it resulted in people seeing him as less dominant than he really was.

[Mike90]

Thanks. I feel better about Blyleven's Hall case with that info.