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]

Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose

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]

Originally Posted by Bushrod

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]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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/ar...articleid=1604

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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]

Originally Posted by dgarza

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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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.