Who Is The Most Deserving Player That Is NOT In The Hall of Fame?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gary Carter, C. Joe Torre, 1B. Lou Whitaker, 2b. Alan Trammell, SS. Ron Santo, 3B. Andre Dawson,
Dale Murphy, and Tony Oliva, OF. Carl Mays, Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, and Jim Kaat, SP. These guys are the best at their position that are eligible for the Hall of Fame, but not in.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Gary Carter, C. Joe Torre, 1B. Lou Whitaker, 2b. Alan Trammell, SS. Ron Santo, 3B. Andre Dawson,
Dale Murphy, and Tony Oliva, OF. Carl Mays, Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, and Jim Kaat, SP. These guys are the best at their position that are eligible for the Hall of Fame, but not in.

Welcome fuzzy bear. What about your RP's?

[Xanadu Dragon]

F-Bear, welcome!

Fear not on Torre, once he retires, he should get in as a MGR.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I grew up in 1960s when the relievers were generally considered not good enough to start, so I have trouble thinking of them as HOF quality. My reliever would be Goose Gossage. Eckersley would take his place once he's eligible.

[Baudib]

Here's a couple names to ponder:
Sadaharu Oh, Turkey Stearnes, Cecil Travis.


I think Ron Guidry is the best pitcher not in the Hall; at his best, he was a lot better than Blyleven, John, Kaat.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Sadaharu Oh?

I dunno? Then why not Hector Espino (http://www.pubdim.net/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/E/Espino_Hector.stm) too?

Ditto on Gator - - I wish the Big Stein would retire 49 already too.

For more on Guidry, see:
http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=779

[LeGrandOrange]

You know, I wanted to make a thread about Oh, but didn't have the words.
Does anyone have a GOOD link to Japanese baseball history (and one that's in English?), because I don't know much about Japanese baseball, and therefore cannot make a good opinion about Sadaharu's case. The level of play might be lower in Japan, but if Ichiro can leave Japan to be a MVP candidate in the States (whether he's deservant of it or not isn't relevant), they must be doing SOMETHING right.
Japanese Leagues are to the new millennium what the Negro Leagues were in the late 40's and 50's, something of a "feeder league" to Major League Baseball. I have no idea if it's a good thing, but I'll figure it out in time.
BTW, Turkey is already in. He got in 3 years ago.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
You know, I wanted to make a thread about Oh, but didn't have the words.
Does anyone have a GOOD link to Japanese baseball history (and one that's in English?), because I don't know much about Japanese baseball, and therefore cannot make a good opinion about Sadaharu's case. The level of play might be lower in Japan, but if Ichiro can leave Japan to be a MVP candidate in the States (whether he's deservant of it or not isn't relevant), they must be doing SOMETHING right.
Japanese Leagues are to the new millennium what the Negro Leagues were in the late 40's and 50's, something of a "feeder league" to Major League Baseball. I have no idea if it's a good thing, but I'll figure it out in time.
BTW, Turkey is already in. He got in 3 years ago.

I dunno about the comparison to the Negro Leagues, because Nippon baseball is much more structured than they were. Here's a good link on stats et al: www.inter.co.jp/Baseball

[Baudib]

Did not realize Stearnes was in. Is Mule Suttles in?

The comparison of Japanese Leagues to the Negro Leagues is interesting, but I think the two are very different. I am sure that the Japanese leagues of the past 30 years are much better than the Negro Leagues in terms of depth of talent, although not as many superstars. Most observers of the Negro Leagues have said that the best Negro League teams did not have much depth; usually they had only 15-18 players on a team, which is why so many of them were multiposition players, with most pitchers also playing the field. An All-Star black team from 1940, of course, would probably be comparable to an All-Star black team today, but the individual teams, compared to, say, the Yankees, might have 2-3 superstars that compared favorably with DiMaggio and Keller and Ruffing, but the Yankees would beat them because they had eight good players and six good pitchers.

I'm not sure if Sad Oh deserves recognition in American baseball or not, but it's an interesting discussion. I would guess that he'd have been comparable to Mel Ott or Jimmy Wynn, a small guy who walked 140 times a year and could hit homers.

I am in favor of a special wing in the Hall for all players who lost their chance at the Hall because of wartime service.

[LeGrandOrange]

Ott's a great comparison, he used the "foot in the bucket" stance as well. Although it's coincedental.
I think that Sadaharu would definitely NOT hit 868 HR's in the States, but he'd be a valuable player. If the strike zone is universal, then you gotta have him on a team. I did not realize Sadaharu was a walk machine...2,390 frickin' walks! DAMN! Talk about a batting eye.
Sadaharu Oh would've been a decent all-star 1B had he have played here during the 1960's or 1970's, and I think we'd talk about him being in Cooperstown. He wouldn't be the home run king, the parks were bigger here (Katsua Nomura, the catcher(!) who's the all time leader in Japanese League games, is right behind Oh...because his park with 280 down the lines and 350 to center), but he might have 400. If he's a decent fielder, a major league version of Sadaharu might resemble a better version of John Olerud. Not bad. (And maybe that's an understatement)
Then again, he never did play, and he'll only play in the US on Bill James Classic Baseball.
At any rate, that's my opinion.
BTW, Suttles isn't in, because the name didn't immediately resonate in my mind. :)
The wartime thing would be interesting. The only thing I know about that is that your first member of THAT would be Joe Gordon, no questions asked.
Still, your mileage may vary.

[Baudib]

Ott, too, had a right-field line of about 280 feet...so the comparison is even stronger.

On Gordon...I believe he should be in anyway, it is really mind-boggling that Doerr is in, Gordon is out...they were exact contemporaries, nearly identical players, except that Gordon was probably much better, because he hit in Yankee/Cleveland, while Doerr hit in Fenway, and Gordon's teams won much more often.

The reason I mentioned Travis is because his career was basically destroyed by the war. He led the AL in hits in 1941, when two guys named DiMaggio and Williams had pretty famous years. He was basically Nomar, or Jeter, in the AL at that time. He was 27, and had about 1,100 hits or more, he would have been an excellent 3,000-hit candidate.

[LeGrandOrange]

I did know that that was the reason Cecil Travis was mentioned. Gordon was the guy that I generally associated with wartime costing a Cooperstown nod. Gordon probably should be in, though. He's not the best, second best, or even third best not in, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, and Willie Randolph are in those spots in some order. That's simply my opinion, and is somewhat career based. But Gordon's a guy who was exceptional at the position, the best for his time, and prolonged levels of being on top quantify a potential induction.
Hell, you could even consider the guy he was traded for for Cooperstown, Allie Reynolds. Not a bad player in his own right...
In addition to Cecil, I feel that one of his teammates had wartime service cost him from being perhaps a fringe hall of famer or merely an under-appreciated at NetShrine, and that's Buddy Lewis. When I was doing some mindless stat tabulation, I learned who Buddy Lewis was for the first time, and it's amazing that for a guy I'd never heard of...he was pretty darn good. This is a reason he got a NetShrine nomination, for sure. (And I would've suggested it myself eventually. Although Buddy DOES remind me of another 3B/OF who should get in...)
There's of course others too.
Anyway, that's my way of thinking...

[Baudib]

I'd take Gordon over all those guys, give him back those couple of years, and it's no contest. I'd put Trammell in over Whitaker, and I'm on the fence on Trammell. Whitaker ended up with better numbers, but because he played a few more years and ended up as a platoon player...a few extra years at the end of your career doesn't make you a Hall of Famer, in my book. Randolph was a good player for a very long time, but he was never great...at his best, he wasn't as good as Knoblauch, or Carlos Baerga.

[nightal]

Bill James deals with Travis' wartime experiences in depth in the latest historical abstract. He was never the same after wartime service.
I'd like to know on what basis that Whitaker, Grich and Randolph are superior to Gordon as HOF candidates?
Vern Stephens is superior to Travis and in my opinion, any shortstop not in the HOF as I've presented evidence before.

As far as pitchers, Guidry's the best not in the hall? Maybe in a season or two, but please back up your argument's with something.

[mandamin]

Guidry had two phenomenal years, but can't possibly compare to Bert Blyleven. They were almost exactly equal in terms of effectiveness (Blyleven has an ERA+ of 118, Guidry 119)--if you ignore the fact that Blyleven did it for 8 years and 2300 IP longer, and in less friendly parks (Guidry was a lefty pitching in a park that was murder on RH hitters).
I think that you definitely put Blyleven in, and maybe Carl Mays, and after that all you're doing is piling in more Early Wynns, Wait Hoyts and Jim Bunnings, and who needs that?
Let me throw two more names out there--first, Dick Allen. He was a jerk, but a far better player than Torre, not to mention almost every 1B currently in Cooperstown, and he was the best hitter in the NL from 1967 through 1974 (cumulative, not each and every year).
Second, Bobby Grich. He had five seasons--1974, 1976, 1979, 1981 and 1983--which were about as good as Whitaker's best year (1991), and was apparently a whiz with the glove. Total Baseball, which isn't a very good source but is the only thing I have available right now, rates him (using the lifetime Total Player Rating list) as the fourth-best 2B in history, which he isn't, but still, that's gotta count for something...

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by mandamin
Guidry had two phenomenal years

Mandamin - welcome to the forum.

Just two good years for Guidry?

See:
http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=779

[sweaver]

Sorry, guys, Guidry has to stand behind Blyleven, John, and Tiant. The Gator's career was awfully short.

He was unbeatable in 1978, though.

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon

Just two good years for Guidry?

See:
http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=779

Thanks for the welcome. :)
There is a difference between "good" and "phenomenal." Looking at the stats more closely, though, let me clarify my point. I guess I'd say he had one "phenomenal" year ('78), three very good years ('77, '79, and '81), and the rest of the time he was generally above average. By the same (completely arbitrary) standards, Kevin Appier, while he never had a season as good as Guidry's '78, had two ('92 and '93) which were much better than any OTHER season Guidry had, four other "very good" years ('90, '94, '96 and '97), and the rest of the time was generally above average. Their career numbers (through 2000) actually compare very well, except that Appier's ERA+ is considerably better, and Guidry's winning percentage is much better. Is Appier a HOFer, if he retires today? Well, if you think so, then I suppose Guidry is one too. But I don't, as though that needed to be said. :)

[Baudib]

I feel the Hall of Fame should be for guys who were dominant. If you're not a dominant player, then you have to have a real long career, and reach special milestones: 500 homers, 3,000 hits, 300 wins. In general, if you're not dominant, you are not going to reach those levels.
Don Sutton, while not dominant, won 320 games, and I'm OK with him being in. If Al Oliver had gotten 3,000 hits, OK, fine, put him in.
But Bert was never dominant; he never led the league in ERA or wins, or winning percentage. Guidry led the league in ERA twice, wins twice, winning percentage twice. Some people, based on his ERA+, want to put Blyleven on a level with Carlton or Seaver, which is ridiculous. Carlton and Seaver won Cy Young awards with some bad teams. Blyleven's teams, in general, were pretty average, more importantly, they were generally good offensive teams, and Bert never had a 27-10 year or 25-7, or 25-3 or 23-7. He went 12-5 on a World Championship team, and was probably their sixth-most valuable pitcher.
If you look at his prime years, Bert was never considered among the best pitchers in baseball. From 1970-79 there was an inordinate number of great pitchers: Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Jenkins, Perry, Sutton, Niekro would all have to be regarded as much better than Bert, as well as many others such as Tiant, Hunter, Ryan, Sutton, possibly Lolich, Blue. At times he would rank well behind Leonard, Messersmith, Wood, Kaat, McNally, Cuellar, Randy Jones, Tanana, Richard, Eckersley, Caldwell.
Bert lasted a lot longer than most of those guys, so he's a better HOF candidate. But Guidry was dominant for a short time; I am more in favor of the Dean/Koufax/Guidry types for the Hall of Fame than the Tommy John/Vic Willis/Blyleven types.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Yeah, I don't want Appier in Cooperstown - - unless he buys a ticket.

Those who say "No Bert" claim he was rarely the # 1 guy on the staffs of which he was a member - - so, how can he be great? Agree? Disagree?

Seems to me the same can be said about Sutton.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by mandamin

I guess I'd say he had one "phenomenal" year ('78), three very good years ('77, '79, and '81), and the rest of the time he was generally above average.

I find it fascinating that Guidry's 1985 season is merely "generally above average," when in fact, he was first in wins, first in winning percentage, fifth in innings, second in strikeout-to-walk ratio, second in walks per game, second in baserunners per game, eighth in ERA, fifth in Component ERA.
Sounds like the type of season Steinbrenner would happily pay $20 million a year for to me.
1983 is similar, he's third in wins, first in complete games, fourth in K-W ratio, fourth in OBP against, 11th in ERA. Incidentally, his defense that year included a former Gold Glover, but a 38-year-old former Gold Glover at 3B, and a DH at SS and LF.

ERA+ isn't everything.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Yeah, I don't want Appier in Cooperstown - - unless he buys a ticket.

Those who say "No Bert" claim he was rarely the # 1 guy on the staffs of which he was a member - - so, how can he be great? Agree? Disagree?

Seems to me the same can be said about Sutton.

Much of the same can be applied to Sutton, although in either case it's not really true. Sutton is in because of longevity, and he won 40 more games than Blyleven. While I haven't done an exhaustive study on it, I would guess that Sutton's teams were much better than Blyleven's, but they were mostly better because they had better pitching. Blyleven probably got much better run support than Sutton in his career.

I think 300 wins is an appropriate cutoff for pitchers of this ilk. If Nolan finished his career with 280 wins, I would have no problem with arguing against keeping him out.

[sweaver]

Sutton's teams were much better than Blyleven's. Bert was the best pitcher on his team many years. He was the #2 guy on a couple of World Champions, too. A great postseason pitcher when he got that chance.

I think HOFers should have at least 200 wins, unless they have three or four Cy Youngs on their mantle, like Koufax. Guidry's career was too short, although it certainly wasn't his fault that the Yankees didn't bring him up by 1974 or 75 full-time, when he was ready for the Show.

He had about 7 real top-quality years. If he doesn't win 25 in 1978, this isn't even a discussion.

[Baudib]

Sutton's teams were better, but I don't think he got any more support from his teams than Blyleven.
Blyleven was in fact, on several good teams.

Yr Team W-L
'70 98-64 10-9
'74 82-80 17-17
'77 94-68 14-12
'78 88-73 14-10
'79 95-65 12-5
'80 83-79 8-13
'87 85-77 15-12
'88 91-71 10-17
'89 91-71 17-5

These are the teams that Bert played for that had a winning record. I shall point out that these teams specifically tended to be better hitting teams than pitching teams. They had a winning percentage of .553, while Bert was .539 for them. Only two of the nine years did Bert significantly lift his team's W-L record, in 1989,
and 1979...and frankly, 12-5 in 37 starts for the World Champs (best offense in the league by a mile) is not impressive.
Blyleven's 1984 season (19-7 for the Indians) is genuinely impressive; his "great" 1973, he went 20-17 for a .500 team.

As for not even talking about Guidry if not for his 25-win season...well, a player's accomplishments are normally the basis for Hall of Fame discussions...

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib


I find it fascinating that Guidry's 1985 season is merely "generally above average," when in fact, he was first in wins, first in winning percentage, fifth in innings, second in strikeout-to-walk ratio, second in walks per game, second in baserunners per game, eighth in ERA, fifth in Component ERA.
Sounds like the type of season Steinbrenner would happily pay $20 million a year for to me.
1983 is similar, he's third in wins, first in complete games, fourth in K-W ratio, fourth in OBP against, 11th in ERA. Incidentally, his defense that year included a former Gold Glover, but a 38-year-old former Gold Glover at 3B, and a DH at SS and LF.

ERA+ isn't everything.

No, ERA+ isn't everything, agreed. It is, however, a good quick way to compare pitchers. But in any case, Guidry wasn't one of the five best pitchers in the AL in 1983 OR 1985. In both years, he pitched for teams that won 90+ games and scored well over the league average number of runs (the Yankees in 1985 led the league in R, and quite easily). He was comfortably "above average" each year, but didn't have anywhere near the kind of seasons you'd expect from a Hall of Fame pitcher.
In 1985, Guidry pitched 259 innings, held opposing hitters to a .279 OBP and gave up 28 homers. Blyleven, meanwhile, pitched a league-leading 293 2/3 innings, led the league in complete games, shutouts, and strikeouts, and held opponents to a.292 OBP. He gave up 23 homers, and had a 3.18 ERA to Guidry's 3.27, and under slightly more hitter-friendly conditions. He went 9-11 and 8-5 for teams that finished 60-102 and 77-85, while Guidry went 22-6 for a team that won 97 games. Now, I know there's a mathematical way to figure this out, but it would take me (an English major) way more time than it was worth to get it done--I just bet that if you put Blyleven and his almost 300 innings on a team like the one Guidry was playing for, he wins 26, 27 games. The thing is that Blyleven never had the opportunity to play for a team that was quite that good, except in Pittsburgh in 1979, when he happened to have one of the four true off-years of his 22-year career.
I know your intention wasn't to compare 1985 Guidry to 1985 Blyleven, but let's look at this. 1985 for Guidry really was probably his fourth- or fifth- best year. Blyleven was a demonstrably better pitcher that year, and while it was also one of his best years, he has six others that were just as good or better, and four others that are close. That's 11 years--if you were to pick Guidry's 11 best years, you'd end up with some in which he was completely average or worse. It's just not close.

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib
Sutton's teams were better, but I don't think he got any more support from his teams than Blyleven.
Blyleven was in fact, on several good teams.

Yr Team W-L
'70 98-64 10-9
'74 82-80 17-17
'77 94-68 14-12
'78 88-73 14-10
'79 95-65 12-5
'80 83-79 8-13
'87 85-77 15-12
'88 91-71 10-17
'89 91-71 17-5

These are the teams that Bert played for that had a winning record. I shall point out that these teams specifically tended to be better hitting teams than pitching teams. They had a winning percentage of .553, while Bert was .539 for them. Only two of the nine years did Bert significantly lift his team's W-L record, in 1989,
and 1979...and frankly, 12-5 in 37 starts for the World Champs (best offense in the league by a mile) is not impressive.
Blyleven's 1984 season (19-7 for the Indians) is genuinely impressive; his "great" 1973, he went 20-17 for a .500 team.

As for not even talking about Guidry if not for his 25-win season...well, a player's accomplishments are normally the basis for Hall of Fame discussions...

You're taking these seasons out of context. Except for 1979, when he blew it, Blyleven was never on any real good teams when he was at the height of his abilities.

In 1970, Blyleven was a 19 year-old rookie, and he had a darn good year for a teenager. Clearly helped his team win those 98 games, when compared to a replacement-level player. Guidry was six years away from the majors at 19, and Sutton was two years away (although his rookie year was a darn good year for a twenty-one year-old).

In 1974 Blyleven was (for the second year in a row) the best or second-best pitcher in the AL. He pitched for a team that was essentially a .500 team (that's an awfully broad definition of "good teams," given the kinds of teams that Guidry and Sutton played for), and had a .500 record, which given his statistics implies really bad luck/run support. This was a team that was in about the middle of the league in terms of runs scored, and frankly I don't see how you can fault a guy for being the second-best pitcher in the league (probably behind Gaylord Perry). At this age, 23, Sutton went 11-15 (.423) with a 106 ERA+ for a team that went 76-86 (.469). I don't know Guidry's life story, but he was probably biding his time in the Appalachian League or something.

Blyleven was a great pitcher again in 1977; he had the 2nd-best ERA and 2nd-best ERA+ in the league. The Rangers team he pitched for was not a great offensive team (6th in the AL, 4th in the West). Again, he did everything he possibly could to help his team win--nothing wrong with being the second-best pitcher in the AL. He was limited to 30 starts for some reason. In a full Blyleven season (37 starts, 280 or so IP), with a few good breaks and the run support the Rangers gave the other starters on the team, he could easily have won 20. Sutton at age 25 went 15-13, 94 ERA+ for a team that went 87-74 with above-average runs scored; Guidry pitched in the first 10 games of his career, starting 1, with an 0-1 record.

In '78, Blyleven had a good year, not great, and his 14-10 record is probably about what he deserved. Sutton started to come into his own at age 27 and 28, with two seasons ('72 and '73) very similar to Blyleven's best, already discussed, with teams that won 85 and 95 games. Guidry pitched in 7 games at age 27.

Blyleven struggled a lot in Pittsburgh, when he should've been at his peak; I don't understand why. Guidry had most of his best years at these ages, 28-31. His 1978 is incredible, but none of the others are any better than Blyleven's '73, '74 or '77.

Then Blyleven went to Cleveland, where from the fifties through the early nineties was where good ballplayers went to die, and put up some of the best numbers of his career. He went 19-7 in 1984, with a 2.87 ERA and 143 ERA+. In games in which he didn't get a decision (only six of which came in games he started), the Indians were 56-80. From ages 30-35, Blyleven went 73-56 (.565) for teams that went 335-416 (.446) and 148-176 (.456) (I didn't know how to divide up the time split in 1985 between the Indians and Twins, which is kind of an important time--suffice it to say that they were both bad teams). In the same age span, Sutton went 91-62 (.594) for teams that went 544-429 (.559). Guidry went 95-49 (.660) for teams that went 516-398 (.564). All three pitched well above what you'd expect from an average pitcher on their teams, but what Blyleven did on these terrible teams overshadows what the other two did on their great teams. He was a far superior pitcher who was cursed with incredibly inferior teams.

In '87 and '88, Blyleven was washed up (although he was still above average in '87), at 36-37 years old after 17-18 years of pitching. He used everything he had to have one more incredible season in '89, pitching for the team with the worst offense in the division.

I know this is a TON of material, but let me sum up what I'm trying to say. I think you overstate three things:
a) the extent to which the good teams Blyleven pitched for were good offensive teams. The '79 Pirates were; the others were only slightly above average, (if that--they also all played in hitters' parks). The '87 Twins were famous for their offense, but only because they had NO pitching; they were actually outscored, and Blyleven was the only good pitcher on the team aside from Viola. Without him, they wouldn't have had a prayer.
b) the number of "good teams" Blyleven played on. A lot of them were .500 clubs that finished a few games above because of a good break here and there on games in which he wasn't pitching.
c) the extent to which any of those things matter. Blyleven was a truly great pitcher who had his best years on teams that were average or worse; Guidry was a very good pitcher who had his best years on 90- and 100-game winners; Sutton was a slightly above-average pitcher who had his best years on pennant winners and pitched in a pitcher's park. This doesn't change the fact that Blyleven was a truly great pitcher, in the neighborhood of Steve Carlton, while Ron Guidry was very good and Sutton was slightly above average.

There should be a better conclusion here, but I doubt anyone's still reading anyway, and I'm getting very tired of writing this one...

[Baudib]

Sorry, Bert was never truly a great pitcher. His won-lost record is a lot more indicative of his ability than his ERA; he consistently lost to the many premier pitchers in the league when he matched up against them, he was about 40 games under .500 in one-run games. That simple fact keeps him out of the Hall of Fame; otherwise, he would have had seasons that were 24-13 instead of 20-17 and 17-9 instead of 14-12, and he would have 300 wins.
I'm not taking anything out of context, his won-lost records were exactly what I said they were, his teams' records were exactly what I said they were. Give him a mulligan for his rookie season, and it's still not an impressive record.
Again, Bert's teams were mostly average, and to the extent that they were average, they were better offensively than on the mound. Even the year you point out, 1984, with a bad Cleveland team, the Indians were third in the league in runs scored.
Bottom line: Bert's a good No. 2 or No. 3 starter on a good team, and an ace for a team with no pitching, not someone who is going to beat Jim Palmer or Steve Carlton. Whether that's a Hall of Famer or not is up to you.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by mandamin


No, ERA+ isn't everything, agreed. It is, however, a good quick way to compare pitchers. But in any case, Guidry wasn't one of the five best pitchers in the AL in 1983 OR 1985. In both years, he pitched for teams that won 90+ games and scored well over the league average number of runs (the Yankees in 1985 led the league in R, and quite easily). He was comfortably "above average" each year, but didn't have anywhere near the kind of seasons you'd expect from a Hall of Fame pitcher.
In 1985, Guidry pitched 259 innings, held opposing hitters to a .279 OBP and gave up 28 homers. Blyleven, meanwhile, pitched a league-leading 293 2/3 innings, led the league in complete games, shutouts, and strikeouts, and held opponents to a.292 OBP. He gave up 23 homers, and had a 3.18 ERA to Guidry's 3.27, and under slightly more hitter-friendly conditions. He went 9-11 and 8-5 for teams that finished 60-102 and 77-85, while Guidry went 22-6 for a team that won 97 games. Now, I know there's a mathematical way to figure this out, but it would take me (an English major) way more time than it was worth to get it done--I just bet that if you put Blyleven and his almost 300 innings on a team like the one Guidry was playing for, he wins 26, 27 games. The thing is that Blyleven never had the opportunity to play for a team that was quite that good, except in Pittsburgh in 1979, when he happened to have one of the four true off-years of his 22-year career.
I know your intention wasn't to compare 1985 Guidry to 1985 Blyleven, but let's look at this. 1985 for Guidry really was probably his fourth- or fifth- best year. Blyleven was a demonstrably better pitcher that year, and while it was also one of his best years, he has six others that were just as good or better, and four others that are close. That's 11 years--if you were to pick Guidry's 11 best years, you'd end up with some in which he was completely average or worse. It's just not close.

Blyleven had more good years. No one doubts that. But Guidry's good years were better.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by mandamin


He went 9-11 and 8-5 for teams that finished 60-102 and 77-85, while Guidry went 22-6 for a team that won 97 games. Now, I know there's a mathematical way to figure this out, but it would take me (an English major) way more time than it was worth to get it done--I just bet that if you put Blyleven and his almost 300 innings on a team like the one Guidry was playing for, he wins 26, 27 games. The thing is that Blyleven never had the opportunity to play for a team that was quite that good, except in Pittsburgh in 1979, when he happened to have one of the four true off-years of his 22-year career.

Suffice it to say, a lot of guys have pitched 290 innings with an ERA around 3.20 on teams that score 5 runs a game, and they don't win 26 or 27 games.

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib


Suffice it to say, a lot of guys have pitched 290 innings with an ERA around 3.20 on teams that score 5 runs a game, and they don't win 26 or 27 games.

How many guys have pitched 293 innings with an ERA of around 3.16 (as Blyleven did) on teams that score at or around 5.17 runs per game (as Guidry's did) in leagues with teams that average at or around 4.54 runs per game and haven't won a large number of games? That's what we're talking about here. If a guy pitched 293 innings with a 3.16 ERA on teams that score 5 runs per game in leagues where 5 runs per game is the norm, they won't win 27; nor will they if they pitch 293 innings with a 3.16 ERA on teams that score 4.54 runs per game in leagues where 4.54 runs per game is the norm (they'll probably be about .500). It's all about context. Blyleven had a much better season than Guidry in '85. Guidry had a lot of things going for him that were out of his control; Blyleven had NONE of those things going for him.

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib


Blyleven had more good years. No one doubts that. But Guidry's good years were better.
But how many good years did Guidry have? I'd say, again, that he had one great year, three or four very good years, and a few other good years. Blyleven had several very, very good years, better than all but one of Guidry's, and a total of 11 very good years. How many pitchers with as many good years as Blyleven's aren't in the Hall?

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib
Sorry, Bert was never truly a great pitcher. His won-lost record is a lot more indicative of his ability than his ERA; he consistently lost to the many premier pitchers in the league when he matched up against them, he was about 40 games under .500 in one-run games. That simple fact keeps him out of the Hall of Fame; otherwise, he would have had seasons that were 24-13 instead of 20-17 and 17-9 instead of 14-12, and he would have 300 wins.
I'm not taking anything out of context, his won-lost records were exactly what I said they were, his teams' records were exactly what I said they were. Give him a mulligan for his rookie season, and it's still not an impressive record.
Again, Bert's teams were mostly average, and to the extent that they were average, they were better offensively than on the mound. Even the year you point out, 1984, with a bad Cleveland team, the Indians were third in the league in runs scored.
Bottom line: Bert's a good No. 2 or No. 3 starter on a good team, and an ace for a team with no pitching, not someone who is going to beat Jim Palmer or Steve Carlton. Whether that's a Hall of Famer or not is up to you.

How is his won-lost record more indicative of his ability than his ERA? Do you have boxscores that show him losing an inordinate number of games to Palmer or Carlton? I agree that the one-run games he lost keep him out of the Hall of Fame, but that has a lot more to do with luck than to his ability as a pitcher. If he got lucky and his team scored two extra runs here and there, he'd be a 300-game winner and a shoo-in. Likewise, if he had teams that were just a few games better than they were during his best years, he'd easily be a 300-game winner. What you point out just speaks to his being a tough-luck pitcher who's better than his W-L record indicates.
Blyleven's percentage numbers, most significantly his ERA+, speak to his ability better than any other measure; in these, he's every bit as good as the top pitchers of his era, which suggests that when he goes against them, he wins about half the time. You really can't argue with that. He was every bit as great a pitcher as they were. The fact remains that he was the best or second best pitcher in the league in '73, '74, '77 and '84, and comfortably in the top five for a large part of the rest of his career. How is that "a #2 or #3 pitcher on a good team"?

[mandamin]

Oh, one more thing. I don't understand how you can say you aren't taking anything out of context. You list those records, and yes, they are the real records, but you're using them to say that Blyleven pitched for good teams and didn't have good records, and that's only partly true. I showed you that with the exception of the '79 Pirates, all of the truly "good teams" that Blyleven played for were either very early or very late in his career; the few teams that you list that came during his prime years are really not what I'd call "good teams," and nowhere CLOSE to the level of teams that Guidry and Sutton had the privilege of pitching for. Had Blyleven pitched for the Yankees during his prime, he might have won 340 games. Had he pitched for the Dodgers during his prime, he might have won 340 games and had an ERA below 3.00. That's context.

[nightal]

I loved Guidry, but Blyleven, on the whole; was better. Didn't we have a thread on the most underrated players in history a while back??
If so, Bert Blyleven is one of the starting pitchers; for all the well researched info provided by mandamin obove.
But, if I had to win ONE game and I had Ron Guidry, circa 1978, he is the man among lefties that I would want pitching.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by mandamin


How is his won-lost record more indicative of his ability than his ERA? Do you have boxscores that show him losing an inordinate number of games to Palmer or Carlton? I agree that the one-run games he lost keep him out of the Hall of Fame, but that has a lot more to do with luck than to his ability as a pitcher. If he got lucky and his team scored two extra runs here and there, he'd be a 300-game winner and a shoo-in. Likewise, if he had teams that were just a few games better than they were during his best years, he'd easily be a 300-game winner. What you point out just speaks to his being a tough-luck pitcher who's better than his W-L record indicates.
Blyleven's percentage numbers, most significantly his ERA+, speak to his ability better than any other measure; in these, he's every bit as good as the top pitchers of his era, which suggests that when he goes against them, he wins about half the time. You really can't argue with that. He was every bit as great a pitcher as they were. The fact remains that he was the best or second best pitcher in the league in '73, '74, '77 and '84, and comfortably in the top five for a large part of the rest of his career. How is that "a #2 or #3 pitcher on a good team"?

Blyleven's record in one-run games has nothing to do with luck, they have to do with the fact that he didn't win. He must have the worst record in one-run games of any pitcher in history with 200 wins. Over the course of 20 years, I don't believe that's luck. In 73, 74, 77, 84, he was, as I said, the ace of a bad team. I don't believe any of his numbers suggest he was as good as the best pitchers of his era, Carlton, Seaver, Palmer. If you want to make a HOF case for a guy from that era that didn't get in, it's Luis Tiant, not Blyleven. There have been lots of pitchers with worse teams than Blyleven's that are in the Hall of Fame, and most of them have better won-lost records.

[Baudib]

Let's compare Blyleven to Nolan Ryan, whom no one ever suggested was a winner, and, in fact, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the opposite is true.

Using Mandamin's best four years for Bert, I compared him to Ryan's best four years (72, 72, 77, 81).

Over the four years, Ryan has a small edge in ERA, 2.52 to 2.68. But, Blyleven's ERA vs. the league is a lot better. Over the four years, Blyleven saved 157 runs vs. the league, Ryan just 110.

Blyleven's teams over the four years are quite a bit better than Ryan's, posting a .512 winning percentage, .499 when he didn't get a decision. Ryan's teams were .480, .457 when he didn't get a decision.

Blyleven's offenses were A LOT better, scoring an average of 4.54 runs per game, while Ryan's teams scored only 3.65 runs per game. Blyleven's teams were above average in runs scored every year, four the four years they were third, fourth, fifth and sixth in runs. Ryan's teams were below average every year, ninth, 10th, 11th, and 12th.

So Blyleven was saving a lot more runs, pitching for much better offenses.

Their records for the four-year periods are identical: 70-53.

This would suggest to me that, while Blyleven saved 157 runs, he was no more effective than a guy who saved 110 runs. In fact, he was quite a bit less effective, since Ryan had much worse run support. If this happened in a single year, I wouldn't think much of it, but this is four years, his best four years, with three different teams, some good, some bad, and it seems that Bert was probably lucky in terms of run support in one of these years, 1984.

Are these four years unusual for Blyleven? Not at all. In 1972, he had a 2.73 ERA for a 77-77 team with an average offense. He went 17-17. He had a 2.81 ERA in 1971 for a team that had an above average offense, and he went 16-15. His record was barely better than Jim Perry, who had a 4.23 ERA.

In 1970, he had a 3.18 ERA (league 3.72) on a 98-64 team that was third in runs, and he went 10-9. A guy with an ERA just a bit better went 24-12, a guy with an ERA quite a bit worse went 14-10.

In 1976, he had a 2.87 ERA for two teams. He went 4-5 with a team that had the best offense in the league, and 9-11 with a team that had an average offense.

In 1980, he pitched slightly worse than average, 3.82 (league 3.65), but he was on a team that was 75-66 without him, and was fifth in runs scored. He went 8-13. John Candelaria, Rick Rhoden and Don Robinson combined for a worse ERA, but each had a better won-lost record (combined 25-29).

In Cleveland in 1981, he had a 2.88 ERA, but went 11-7, compared to Denny, who went 10-6 with a 3.15 ERA.

In 1983, he had a much better ERA than Sutcliffe or Sorenson, but he went 7-10, while they went 17-11 and 12-11, respectively.

In 1986, he had a much better ERA than Viola, 4.01 to 4.51, but Viola had essentially the same winning percentage (16-13 to Bert's 17-14).

All of this suggests to me that Bert should have won a lot more games than he did, given his ERAs. His support was generally average, for the four years in question, it's quite a bit above average. Given that, I think his won-lost record is a better indicator of how well he pitched than his ERAs.
As for why this happened, I don't know. Maybe being the type of pitcher he was, a big curveballer who gave up tons of homers, he could shut out weak teams with regularity, but he'd lose 4-3 to good teams.

Incidentally, for the four years in question, Blyleven's teams underperformed their Pythagorean expected won-lost record by eight games, which suggests those teams were not efficient in winning with the runs they had. Ryan's teams exceeded expectations by two games.

[Baudib]

Also, comparing Bert to Ryan is, if anything, doing Bert a favor.

We won't even bother comparing Bert to Seaver or Carlton, because that's a mismatch.

But compare Bert to Palmer:

Palmer, in his four best year, 72, 73, 75, 78, saved 161 runs, about the same as Bert.

But Palmer's teams were much worse offensively, scoring 4.11 runs per game, compared to Bert's 4.54.

Palmer had a much better won-lost record, 87-42, compared to Bert's 70-53. Bert was 9 games above his team, while Palmer was 14.6 wins above his team, and his team, frankly, was a lot better. It's tougher to be better than McNally, Cuellar, McGregor than it is to be better than Neal Heaton and Joe Decker.

Of course, this is Jim Palmer we're talking about, he had about seven or eight years almost as good as his best four.

What about Jim Hunter?
Hunter didn't save anywhere near as many runs in his four best years as Blyleven, he saved less than Ryan: 106.
His offenses were much worse than Blyleven's, about the same as Palmer's, scoring 4.18 runs per game.

But his record is just as good as Palmer's, and blows Blyleven's away: He's 90-44, 18 games better than his team, and, again, his team consists of Vida Blue and Kenny Holtzman.

Now, Hunter is nothing, he's a marginal Hall of Famer. Compare Blyleven to Seaver, Carlton, Perry, Tiant, Niekro, those guys, they're saving more runs to begin with, and winning with much more frequency given the same or worse run support, and tower over their teams.

[Baudib]

Ah, what the heck, I'll do Steve Carlton:

Runs saved:
Carlton 190
Blyleven 157

Team's record in other decisions:
Blyleven .499
Carlton .483

Blyleven's teams were better than Carlton's when neither pitcher got a decision.

Team's runs per game:
Blyleven 4.54
Carlton 4.16

W-L record
Carlton 91-40
Blyleven 70-53

Wins above team:
Carlton 27.7
Blyleven 8.6

I used '69, '72, '77, '80 as Carlton's best years. Frankly, I'm not sure they are, I think his '81 season was just as good, and he won the Cy Young in '82, which I think he deserved, and he had seven other seasons in which he won 15 or more games.

[sweaver]

You have the team runs per game here: what about in Blyleven's starts? Run support per starter can vary wildly, even on the same team.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by sweaver
You have the team runs per game here: what about in Blyleven's starts? Run support per starter can vary wildly, even on the same team.

I estimated the run support he should have gotten for his entire career. (Note: Runs per game were based on teams runs/team innings pitched). For his career, he should have had 2,411 runs of support in his 4,970 innings. He gave up 2,029 runs, earned and unearned. In 537 decisions, this should have produced a record of 314-223, which undoubtedly would have put him in the Hall of Fame years ago. He was 27 wins worse than expected, which, I'm not sure, but I think that would be a record.

His won-lost record suggests that he received about 240 fewer runs of support than he should have expected. Is it possible that he actually was stiffed that many runs over the course of his career? Somehow, I doubt it, although it's possible.

If we assume he actually got the runs he should have, Blyleven won at a rate comparable to a pitcher who gave up 240 more runs than he did, or a guy with a 3.68 ERA instead of 3.31.

When you break it down, Blyleven's underperformance is almost entirely in his early years. There's a clear dividing line that happens when he's traded to the Pirates. In three years in Pittsburgh, he was expected to have a winning percentage of .559, and he had a winning percentage of .548.

The rest of his career, he was essentially even or better than expected.

But in his early years, he's way behind. As a rookie, he should have won 12, he won 10. For the next eight years, he should have won 20, 20, 26, 22, 16, 18, 18, but he fell short every year: 16, 17, 20, 17, 15, 13, 14.

That is pretty remarkable. Can one pitcher be unlucky every year, for nine straight years? I would suggest not. I find it hard to believe he was getting 25-30 runs less every single year than he should have expected. I think that there was something he was doing that was causing him to lose close games. Maybe he wasn't conserving his energy, making perfect pitches with big leads, but giving up a key homer in a tight game. Maybe he eventually figured it out and was able to win more efficiently as he got older.

There is the possibility that Blyleven was pitching too long into games, and losing games when another starter would have been out of the game.

The problem with this is, Blyleven was pitching a lot of innings, but he wasn't pitching any more innings than a bunch of other guys. From 1971 to 1979, he pitched 270 innings six times, averaging 273 innings a year.

Phil Niekro averaged 295 innings during that time, Perry 286, Carlton 277. Jim Palmer had six seasons of more than 290 innings in the 1970s. There were usualy 3-5 guys every year pitching 290 innings in each league.

Of course, maybe Blyleven shouldn't have been pitching so many innings. When Blyleven went to the Pirates, one of the obvious things that happened is that he had a big bullpen with Gossage and then Tekulve behind him. All of a sudden, he wasn't falling 4-5 wins short of expectations every year. On the other hand, he wasn't exactly great; he was essentially no better than Don Robinson or John Candelaria in those years. Winning 12 games in 37 starts for the World Champs isn't HOF material.

Still, maybe in those years when he was going 17-17, he would have been 20-14 with a few less innings, with a better bullpen behind him. But Steve Carlton went 27-10 with a last-place team while pitching 346 innings; Gaylord Perry went 24-16 with a fifth-place team while pitching 342 innings. Randy Jones went 20-12 and 22-14 with bad teams while pitching 285 and 315 innings a year.

Even so, he did what he did, and the consequences were real. I think, for the most part, his won-lost record is legit.

Even if you accept that Bert was overworked, I don't see how this leads to anything other than the fact that he was a notch below the other great pitchers of his era, of which there was an inordinate amount during the 1970s. Given that, I have to conclude that he was not a dominant pitcher, and I don't think he's a Hall of Famer.

[sweaver]

I think you have supported your position well, although I tend to disagree on a few points. I believe it is possible to be "unlucky" for 9 straight years, and I think Bert would have benefitted from a modern bullpen. He did pitch a lot of innings in those years. He also amassed a lot of strikeouts, something you didn't mention and which, IMO, makes him Hall material as well.

The Twins in those days were also not known for defensive prowess (Carew at 2B, for example). Perhaps unearned runs....?

[Baudib]

Originally posted by sweaver
I think you have supported your position well, although I tend to disagree on a few points. I believe it is possible to be "unlucky" for 9 straight years, and I think Bert would have benefitted from a modern bullpen. He did pitch a lot of innings in those years. He also amassed a lot of strikeouts, something you didn't mention and which, IMO, makes him Hall material as well.

The Twins in those days were also not known for defensive prowess (Carew at 2B, for example). Perhaps unearned runs....?

Unearned runs are accounted for. As Bert is a strikeout pitcher, it would seem that defense would hurt him less than his teammates.

As for being unlucky nine straight years, I cannot overemphasize the extent to which he underperformed. For Blyleven to have the expected won-lost record of what he actually did, given the runs he allowed, his teams would have had to have scored about 225 fewer runs than they would have been expected to score, almost a run per game.

I'll run the same for Steve Carlton in a bit...

[KCBOOMER]

I would have Vern Stephens well ahead of Trammell, who is also deserving.

As for Dick Allen I think he is a case where the numbers lie. The BBWA won't vote him in because he was an absolute cancer in the clubhouse. What he did on the field couldn't begin to overcome the damage he did to team unity in the clubhouse.

I think if knowledgeable basbeball people would spend more time educating the BBWA we would get the people in who deserve to be in. As an example of this we should be howling about the oversight to Trammell in selecting Smith ahead of him.

The Veteran's Committee is a travesty and must be eliminated.

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib


His won-lost record suggests that he received about 240 fewer runs of support than he should have expected. Is it possible that he actually was stiffed that many runs over the course of his career? Somehow, I doubt it, although it's possible.


I think it's sad that you've done such solid, admirable work to defend such a preposterous position. It's been proven time and time again by people much more intelligent on these matters than you or I that a pitcher's won-lost record is one of the very worst ways to determine his effectiveness, and that one-run games, when taken alone, are won more by luck than anything else; I suggest we accept these things at face value, since they also make a large amount of sense. While a good pitcher will win more often than a bad pitcher under the exact same conditions, this never happens. It's very possible, and even almost definitely true, that he "was stiffed that many runs over the course of his career." What your research shows, in fact, is that if he had been given even the amount of run support that he could've expected to get from the mediocre teams he played on, he'd have won 320 games. You've done an excellent job making Bert's case.

There is the possibility that Blyleven was pitching too long into games, and losing games when another starter would have been out of the game.

The problem with this is, Blyleven was pitching a lot of innings, but he wasn't pitching any more innings than a bunch of other guys. From 1971 to 1979, he pitched 270 innings six times, averaging 273 innings a year.

This is the most easily identifiable of your mistakes. If this were true, it would be reflected in his ERA; he'd be giving up runs in the late innings, and so his ERA would be closer to 3.68 than 3.31, as you suggested it should be with his record. Whether or not he was overworked, his ERA is 3.31, and his ERA+ is 118, and his expected record, the record that he clearly deserved to earn, is much better than the 287-250 he ended up with. No, it really is that simple; he pitched for bad teams in bad pitchers' parks, and even in that context, he was unlucky. I do think you overestimate his expected run support, but I'm not following your work well enough to check it. Even if you're absolutely right, though, the only possible explanation is that he didn't get nearly as much run support as the rest of his team. You're talking 240 runs over 685 starts--one less run than expected every three (okay, 2.85) games he started. You can't see that happening? I sure can, especially with the mediocre and inconsistent offenses that were supporting him.
I may've just stumbled upon something here...yeah. let me run a chart.
Year ERA+ Team RPG League RPG
1970. 117...4.62.........4.18
1971. 126...4.15.........3.88
1972. 118...3.45.........3.48
1973. 157...4.57.........4.31
1974. 140...4.21.........4.10
1975. 128...4.58.........4.31
1976(M)115..4.58.........4.00
1976(T)130..3.76.........4.00
1977. 150...4.69.........4.57
1978. 122...4.26.........4.01
1979. 108...4.67.........4.22
1980. 95....4.11.........4.03
1981. 126...4.17.........4.08
1982. 84....4.19.........4.50
1983. 109...4.36.........4.52
1984. 143...4.67.........4.45
1985(C)127...4.61........4.60
1985(M)147...4.45........4.60
1986. 108...4.65........4.65
1987. 116...4.96........4.95
1988. 75....4.77.........4.40
1989. 140...4.14.........4.34
1990. 73....4.27.........4.35
1991...........DNP...................
1992. 84....3.60.........4.34

Now, I can't be sure, but I think you'll find a slight inverse relationship between when Blyleven was at his best and when his teams scored the most runs. (Remember, also, that these were all hitters' parks, so by using raw runs scored data we'll still be skewing the data slightly against Blyleven.) I'll be back sometime tonight to analyze this data, but now I have to run. I think that if you go season-by-season, you'll find that his career record is something very close to what it should be, or at least much closer than Baudib suggests...

[Baudib]

Originally posted by mandamin


I think it's sad that you've done such solid, admirable work to defend such a preposterous position. It's been proven time and time again by people much more intelligent on these matters than you or I that a pitcher's won-lost record is one of the very worst ways to determine his effectiveness, and that one-run games, when taken alone, are won more by luck than anything else; I suggest we accept these things at face value, since they also make a large amount of sense. While a good pitcher will win more often than a bad pitcher under the exact same conditions, this never happens. It's very possible, and even almost definitely true, that he "was stiffed that many runs over the course of his career." What your research shows, in fact, is that if he had been given even the amount of run support that he could've expected to get from the mediocre teams he played on, he'd have won 320 games. You've done an excellent job making Bert's case.

Actually, it hasn't been proven. Bill James, who happens to know a few things about baseball, has said time and time again that won-lost records are an important indicator of a pitcher's ability, and, in fact, over the course of his career, are probably the best in lieu of analytical stats.

What is sad is that you are just like every other saberwannabe I have ever come across on the Net; you take something that Bill or Rob Neyer or Mat Olkin said 15 years ago, take it out of context, and insist that any contrary evidence is "preposterous."

What Bill said about won-lost records is that "SINGLE-SEASON WON-LOST RECORDS CAN BE MISLEADING."

He has never said won-lost records are one of the worst ways to determine effectiveness, in fact, he has used it on countless occasions to say it's one of the best ways.

But I appreciate your patronizing tone nonetheless. It's been a few weeks since I've dealt with a snotty, angry saberdweebie with tunnel vision (redundant, I know.)

It is almost impossible, and most definitely not true, that Blyleven was stiffed out of 220-250 runs. That does not happen.

There is one pitcher who underachieves vs. Pythagorean won-lost record, though not nearly to the extent Bert does.
It's Jim Bunning.

Bill writes in the Historical Abstract: "He has an expected career won-lost record of 242-176, thirteen games better than his actual won-lost record."

He then goes on to explain why this discrepancy could happen. This discrepancy is, incidentally, not half the size of Blyleven's.
Bill's reasons:
1. Luck
2. His teammates didn't like him.
3. His bullpen probably failed him and he was probably left in games too long.

I'm not sure if Bill was previously aware of Blyleven's huge discrepancy. I'll let you know his response.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by mandamin


Even if you're absolutely right, though, the only possible explanation is that he didn't get nearly as much run support as the rest of his team. You're talking 240 runs over 685 starts--one less run than expected every three (okay, 2.85) games he started.

It's not 240 in 685 starts. Almost all of the discrepancy, as I said, is in his first nine years. He underperforms every single year for the first nine years of his career. He is missing about 240 runs from his first nine years, about 25-30 a year, about 1 per 9 innings.

[mandamin]

Excuse me...I know the first sentence of my last post was a bit condescending, and I'm sorry, I should've reworded it, but I don't think that I deserved that attack. Now that we've both had our fit of infantile name-calling, can we get back to discussing this like the intelligent people we both are? Please? Everything I've said, whether you agree with it or not, has been backed up by solid research and analysis. I've put a lot of time and effort into making a pretty solid case, and unless you're Bill James himself, I don't think you've done or said anything that puts you in a position to ignore all the relevant points of my argument and call me a "snotty, angry saberdweebie with tunnel vision"--a creative insult, but a bit overboard, don't you think? Let's be civil here.
I'm aware of most of what James has said about won/lost records. I'm not sure I agree; I tend to lean toward the stance of most other modern experts, that they're much less important than James thinks they are, especially since we have ready access to those "analytical stats" James is talking about. That said, I did misspeak when I said that the W-L record was one of the worst ways to determine effectiveness. Taken with other factors, it's certainly not. But it's disastrous when you take it by itself, which is something that Bill James would never do. If a pitcher's other stats put him among, arguably, the top 20-25 pitchers of all time, James wouldn't dismiss him because he happened to have a poor won/lost record. (I'm aware that James rates him 39th in the NHBA, but first, that's still better than at least six Hall of Famers, and second, it's hard to find an objective reason for ranking him that low--he outscores almost everyone in the twenty places in front of him in at least one of the four Win Shares categories, and he outscores Don Sutton in every one of the four Win Shares categories.)
I won't have any more to say until I can analyze the chart I put up up there, which will take some time. In the meantime, I'm sorry for being condescending before, and I hope we can carry this conversation on in a more civil manner...

[mandamin]

Originally posted by Baudib


It's not 240 in 685 starts. Almost all of the discrepancy, as I said, is in his first nine years. He underperforms every single year for the first nine years of his career. He is missing about 240 runs from his first nine years, about 25-30 a year, about 1 per 9 innings.

Okay, I lied, one more thing to say. Even if this is true, and I still think the numbers are suspect (I know that he underperformed in most of those years, but I have a hard time believing it's to the extent that you say he did), it shouldn't be much of a factor in considering his greatness. James admits that Bunning's streak could be attributed to luck; Blyleven was (in general) extremely well-liked, except by rookies, and I have a hard time believing players would slack off just because they didn't like the starting pitcher anyway; and if his bullpen is failing him, which is also likely since he didn't tend to pitch on teams with great bullpens, how can we fault him for that? Also, if you know how it can be possible that his pitching too long into games could be a factor, please explain; I see that James cites that in the Bunning comment, too, but it doesn't make any sense to me; if he's being left in too long, he's giving up more runs, and obviously that would be reflected in his stats...wouldn't it?

[Xanadu Dragon]

:atd:

Probably should have asked ya'll to agree to disagree on this one a while ago..................

................please excuse me for closing it now. It's getting too hot for my tastes. PM me if you have an issue with the closure. Thanks.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In discussing people who should be in the HOF that are eligible, but not elected, we should start with those that are the most deserving, and work down from there.

To me, the HOF line starts with the following players.

1. GARY CARTER, C---NO catcher with similar career stats is NOT in the HOF. NO catcher who was the best catcher in baseball for as long as Carter was is NOT in the HOF.

2. RON SANTO, 3B---Until the Carter snubs, Santo was 1st in line. He was the best 3B in baseball in the 1960s, not Brooks (the Overrated) Robinson.
Most of you know his credentials; they speak for themselves. Santo's career ended suddenly at age 34. He should not be penalized for this; he was a superstar at his best; the best player on the Cubs in the 1960s.

3. BERT BLYLEVEN, P---He's 287-250 lifetime, with an ERA 0.60 better than league. His ERA projects him ahead of Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Nolan the Overrated didn't have a career ERA that much better than league (a little less than 0.40 under). He passed Walter Johnson's K mark once it was no longer a big deal (although how many have passed it since?).

4. LOU WHITAKER, 2B---What 2B not in the HOF is a better player? Whitaker had a better career than many HOF 2B. I would also argue that he was a better player than JOE GORDON and BOBBY GRICH, who are also near the front of this line.

5. DALE MURPHY, CF---Murphy was once considered the best player in baseball, winning back-to-back MVP awards. He hit 399 (not 400) lifetime HRs. He has been penalized for his early decline, but what he did in the early part of his career was what HOFers do. He's 1st in line for CF.

6. TONY OLIVA, RF---1964 Rookie of the Year, won batting titles his first 2 years. His .304 lifetime average and .475 slugging are diminished because of the era in which he played. Tony O. hit a high peak as a player. He was the best player on the 1965 AL Champion Twins.

Some other guys that I think are in this line are Stan Hack, Lance Parrish, Ted Simmons, Don Mattingly, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Ron Guidry, Luis Tiant, Dave McNally, and Mike Cuellar. I think the top 6 mentioned are consensus choices. I look forward to seeing where my on-line peers stand.

[sweaver]

Good list, Fuzz. I'll go along with the first four, and add my support for Kaat, John, and Tiant. Murphy and Oliva are marginal, in my book.

[KCBOOMER]

I think Santo is the guy we need to get the drums beating for. Carter is almost certainly going to get elected next years, but Santo has been passed by.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I think Santo is the guy we need to get the drums beating for. Carter is almost certainly going to get elected next years, but Santo has been passed by.

I would agree that Santo is the #1 HOF injustice if you qualify it by limiting it to players who are no longer up for election through the B.B.W.A.A.

In combining this thread with a previous thread, I was floored by the level of research and intensity of opinion on Bert Blyleven's candidacy.

To this end, I would like to advocate Blyleven's candidacy by saying the following:

1. No pitchers, other than John and Kaat are outside the HOF with comparable career W-L records.

2. I doubt that there is a single pitcher outside the HOF with 200 wins or more (let alone 280 or more) that has a career ERA 0.60 under league ERA as Blyleven does, for his career. (I also doubt that there are many pitchers IN the HOF with a career ERA much better than 0.60 better than league, and a great many who did not best the league ERA by that amount.)

3. Blyleven did not pitch in a plethora of pitcher's parks, except, perhaps, while in Cleveland. Minnesota, Texas, and Pittsburgh were neutral-to-hitters' parks at best.

4. Blyleven pitched in an era when the 5-man rotation was becoming standard, reducing the overall # of decisions by starting pitchers.

I really can't see a pitcher with similar credentials to Blyleven who is not already in the HOF, except for John and Kaat. If those two are to be used as an example to justify Blyleven's exclusion, it should be noted that Blyleven's career by about 3 seasons on both Jim and Tommy. If you want to keep Blyleven out, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I would like to know, however, which pitchers comparable to Blyleven for a career, were rejected for the HOF. (Baseball-Reference.com lists 10 pitchers most similar to Blyleven; all are HOFers.)

[KCBOOMER]

The Blyleven-John-Kaat thing is going to get worse in future years. The VC is going to be confronted with these guys and their 280+ wins while knowing that great pitchers in five day rotations in this era are going to be incredibly lucky to get to 250.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
The Blyleven-John-Kaat thing is going to get worse in future years. The VC is going to be confronted with these guys and their 280+ wins while knowing that great pitchers in five day rotations in this era are going to be incredibly lucky to get to 250.

Maybe its high time that the 3000 hit, 300 win artificial barriers are no longer consideration for automatic enshrinement.

Still, do you reward good careers over a long time, or excellence over a short time? I vote for excellence over sustained above-averageness.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


Maybe its high time that the 3000 hit, 300 win artificial barriers are no longer consideration for automatic enshrinement.

Still, do you reward good careers over a long time, or excellence over a short time? I vote for excellence over sustained above-averageness.

I have always viewed the ability to play at the level of an All-Star for a long period of time as a mark of a great player.

Most players who are merely good, but not great, are usually done by 35. If they ain't, they're probably not regulars.

How many players (particularly position players) are active at 38? at 40? at 42? Name 10 players active at that age that were not at least somewhat viable as HOF candidates (i. e. you may not vote for them, but they wouldn't be the worst at their position in the HOF if elected).

To me, 3,000 hits is impossible to achieve if you aren't a great player. If you are really not a great player, something will extinguish your playing time. In 1992, Bill James estimated that Steve Sax had a 42% chance at 3,000 hits. He also stated that this was an astonishing claim, as no one really thought of Sax as a player of historical magnitude. He then quoted a friend of his who said "no one gets 3,000 hits unless he's a great player". In 2 years, Sax had extinguished any chance he ever had at 3K.

Let's look at the career of Ray Lankford. Here's a guy who was once a guy with a shot at the HOF. If he kept on playing like he was 30 through age 40, he might of had a shot. Lankford has no shot now; at 35, he's just another player. Had he preserved his value, as great players do, it would be another story; he would be compared to Larry Doby; he would have a shot.

On the other hand, Harold Baines was able to play consistent baseball until age 40, and give 3,000 a run. This is evidence of a much greater player, because he was able to preserve and maintain his level of talent for a long time. Baines achieved marginal greatness. Lankford did not.

If ability leaks out and depreciates over the years, and you have maintained most of your ability at age 38, you have done something not every player does. Why should we minimize a ballplayers lack of depreciation when we would celebrate it in a car or a house?

[SmedIndy]

The only reason Baines is still around is that he doesn't have to field, otherwise he'd be Manny Mota. He's not worthy of the hall, and getting 3,000 hits shouldn't automatically qualify you for enshrinement.

And I never thought Lankford was on a HOF track, either.

A lot of guys are hanging on after 35 now.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


Maybe its high time that the 3000 hit, 300 win artificial barriers are no longer consideration for automatic enshrinement.

With the DH rule the 3000 hits or 500 home runs certainly has to be re-considered. On the other hand, with the DH and five man rotations 300 wins has to remain an absolute mortal lock.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
The only reason Baines is still around is that he doesn't have to field, otherwise he'd be Manny Mota. He's not worthy of the hall, and getting 3,000 hits shouldn't automatically qualify you for enshrinement.
I disagree with the notion that becoming a DH makes you unworthy or less worthy of the HOF. I think everything you do as a player needs to be considered....I'm starting a new thread on it (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2794)

[Rice4HOF]

Well, I haven't posted in a while, but since the opening day is around the corner, thought it would be time to start it up again...


What about Jim Rice? There may be a few others who have been excluded who are more worthy, but not many.

I was dismayed that his vote total went down this year, I was hoping this was the year. Have a million reasons why, not enough time or space to list them here, but check out the website I created at http://members.shaw.ca/Rice4HOF and follow the link to the Analysis page.

If you agree, please sign the online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/Rice4HOF/petition.html

[KCBOOMER]

Rice is usually viewed as a pretty marginal candidate around here.

[say hey student]

it's like Poe's story the purloined letter. We're so interested in digging up obscure candidates that we forget the guy right in front of our face. My pick is Mr. Hustle--Pete Rose.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by say hey student
it's like Poe's story the purloined letter. We're so interested in digging up obscure candidates that we forget the guy right in front of our face. My pick is Mr. Hustle--Pete Rose.

Don't get me started on him. He's in a league with about 25 to 30 players who should never get consideration for the HOF. Obviously, there were only a couple besides Rose with the talent to be there, but gambling is not something MLB can tolerate, much less endorse.

[pwdennis]

Deserving Hall of Famers

P1 - Bert Blyleven
P2 - Carl Mays

[pwdennis]

Deserving Hall of Famers: (1B) none (2B) Joe Gordon (SS) Marty Marion (far more deserving that either Pee Reese or Joe Rizzuto) (3B) Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans (OF) Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Orestes Minoso (C) Gary Carter, Ted Simmons, Joe Torre

The omissions of Blyleven and Carter rise to the level of being an outrage.

An interesting case is pitcher Urban Shocker of the Browns and Yankees - his record is comparable to (but better than Herb Pennock and Waite Hoyt) but the teams he played for were considerably worse.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A number of posts discount Blyleven's HOF candidacy because he wasn't always a #1 starter (whatever that means).

The same can be said of Nolan Ryan. He was the most famous pitcher on his Texas Rangers, but he was never the #1 starter.

On the Astros, the go-to guy in the 11986 NLCS was . . . Mike Scott.:D

In 1987, Ryan went 8-16. There was a sabermetric argument that he should have won the Cy Young Award because of ERA and bad luck. If we buy into this, where do we give Blyleven slack for his W-L records?

Ryan was a #1 starter during his heyday with the Angels. Before and after that period, he usually was not.

[pathogan]

Isnt ted simmons noteworthy? Pretty good hitter, played the toughest poisition on the field,didnt get a lot of pub, but...plus the only ballplayer in memory who had a pony tail, has to be worth something

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by pathogan
Isnt ted simmons noteworthy? Pretty good hitter, played the toughest poisition on the field,didnt get a lot of pub, but...plus the only ballplayer in memory who had a pony tail, has to be worth something

I would put Simmons in. There is sabermetric evidence that his defense was underrated, and he was a good hitting catcher. I think Simmons was probably better than half of the catchers in the Hall.

[SmedIndy]

I wouldn't say Blyleven's an outrage.

Ron Santo, THERE'S your outrage. He's 10 times the player Pie Traynor was.

[pwdennis]

I always wondered about Jim Rice's reputation as being sullen and unfriendly. The Major League Baseball Meetings were held at the Sheraton Twin Towers in Orlando in 1978. I worked as a night auditor at the time and obtained autographs from many of the attendees. Jim Rice was one of these and, aside form Cardinal scout Ray Scarborough, was absolutely the friendliest and most affable of the players I encountered.

Jim's misfortune is that his eyesight deteriorated and his career ended after only 16 years (14 years worth of games). If you were to add 30 hrs and another 150 RBI to his career (two mediocre season's worth) he would have been a shoo-in for the HOF. Rice was a far greater offensive force than Tony Perez or Dale Murphy. One of the top tier HOF - no, but more worthy than many existing members.

[Rice4HOF]

Mainly agree with what you said. Some additional comments that I'll add:

"One of the top tier HOF - no, but more worthy than many existing members"
Correct, he is NOT in a class with Ruth, Williams, Mays etc. However, you don't have to look at the bottom of the HoF barrel (Bresnahan, Tinkers, etc.) to find who he is more worthy then. I think he'd rank somewhere in the middle of the existing Hall.


".. career ended after only 16 years (14 years worth of games). If you were to add 30 hrs and another 150 RBI to his career (two mediocre season's worth) he would have been a shoo-in for the HOF"
THis may be the BBWAA thinking also, BUT his career totals are above average for a Hall of Fame. There wasn't a lot of argument about Kirby Puckett making it in, and the only difference in their career length is that Kirby retired immediately after his eye problems. Rice hung around a couple of extra years which brought down his average numbers. If he had retired suddenly and sadly, I believe the writers may have been more sympathetic to him and voted him in.

Again, I ask people to take a look at http://members.shaw.ca/Rice4HOF and follow the link to the Analysis page for more details.

Also, if you agree, PLEASE :help: sign the online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/Rice4HOF/petition.html I'm trying to get enough names so I can send it to the sportswriters responsible for voting towards the end of the year.

THANKS :)

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Rice4HOF
"One of the top tier HOF - no, but more worthy than many existing members"
Correct, he is NOT in a class with Ruth, Williams, Mays etc. However, you don't have to look at the bottom of the HoF barrel (Bresnahan, Tinkers, etc.) to find who he is more worthy then. I think he'd rank somewhere in the middle of the existing Hall.




Sorry, some of us think even the middle of the HOF barrell isn't worthy, especially with the dreck at the bottom.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jim Rice wouldn't disgrace the HOF if selected. Rice, however, is, by no means, the best player outside the HOF who has been denied by the writers at least once.

To wit:

Ron Santo
Gary Carter
Tony Oliva
Stan Hack
Bert Blyleven
Dale Murphy
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Graig Nettles
Luis Tiant
Vada Pinson
Bobby Grich
Lou Whitaker
Minnie Minoso
Ted Simmons
Lance Parrish
Alan Trammell

I would argue that every one of the above-listed players had a more valuable career than Jim (GIDP) Rice, whose stats are skewed by Fenway something fierce.

[RichKnowsBaseball]

I vote for Bert Blyleven.

There is only one pitcher on the following list of all-time strikeout leaders who is eligible for Hall of Fame yet not in the Hall of Fame. 3,000 hits gets you in the Hall and 3,000 Ks gets you in the Hall unless, of course, your name is Bert Blyleven.

CAREER (Through 2002)

STRIKEOUTS SO
1 Nolan Ryan 5714
2 Steve Carlton 4136
3 Roger Clemens 3909
4 Randy Johnson 3746
5 Bert Blyleven 3701
6 Tom Seaver 3640
7 Don Sutton 3574
8 Gaylord Perry 3534
9 Walter Johnson 3509
10 Phil Niekro 3342
11 Ferguson Jenkins 3192
12 Bob Gibson 3117

As further proof of Blyleven's prowess, check out the following list:

CAREER
MODERN (1900-)

RSAA RSAA
1 Lefty Grove 668
2 Walter Johnson 643
3 Roger Clemens 603
4 Greg Maddux 535
5 Grover C Alexander 523
6 Randy Johnson 456
7 Christy Mathewson 409
8 Tom Seaver 404
9 Pedro Martinez 400
10 Carl Hubbell 355
11 Bob Gibson 350
12 Bert Blyleven 343
13 Phil Niekro 322
14 Whitey Ford 321
15 Warren Spahn 319
16 Gaylord Perry 316
17 Jim Palmer 314
18 Hal Newhouser 309

Every pitcher who is eligible for the HOF is in except Blyleven, including the six pitchers behind him. It looks like 300 RSAA gets you in the HOF, too, unless, of course, your name is Bert Blyleven.

Maybe Blyleven is a pitcher who just happened to accumulate a lot of good numbers because of longevity, you say? Well, let's check out the following list:

CAREER
MODERN (1900-)

SHUTOUTS SHO
1 Walter Johnson 110
2 Grover C Alexander 90
3 Christy Mathewson 79
4 Eddie Plank 69
5 Warren Spahn 63
T6 Tom Seaver 61
T6 Nolan Ryan 61
8 Bert Blyleven 60
9 Don Sutton 58
10 Ed Walsh 57
T11 Three Finger Brown 56
T11 Bob Gibson 56
13 Steve Carlton 55
T14 Gaylord Perry 53
T14 Jim Palmer 53
16 Juan Marichal 52
T17 Early Wynn 49
T17 Ferguson Jenkins 49
T17 Rube Waddell 49
T17 Don Drysdale 49

EVERYONE OF THESE DUDES IS IN THE HALL OF FAME except you know who!

[Skip]

Moderator Note: Rich, I merged your thread with this existing one on the same topic.

[KCBOOMER]

RKB,

Blyleven has always received a lot of support around here for the HoF.

[pwdennis]

I would submit that you cannot post 60 career shutouts without being an outstanding pitcher

[Fuzzy Bear]

I started this thread a long time ago, and don't know if I posted this anywhere in it.

I think that the best player not in Cooperstown that should be there is Ryne Sandberg. I don't get real upset about it, because I think he'll go in a year or two; however, Ron Santo may have had that thought at one time.

I also think that Ken Boyer is on a par with Santo. I have come around to this view over the past year. Boyer's stats are what Santo may have turned out in a neutral park; I always knew that, but I perhaps didn't give it enough weight. While Boyer's MVP selection in 1964 is debatable, it's not a Terry Pendleton-esque pick, either. This isn't a knock at Santo; I just believe I have underrated Ken Boyer. (Boyer is dead, while Santo is alive, ailing, and on the air, so Santo's CANDIDACY is stronger.)

[JamesI]

Since Carter got in, the most deserving (elidgable only) would be one of Blyleven, Santo and Sandberg. Probably Sandberg first, then Blyleven, then Santo.

[RichKnowsBaseball]

<< Probably Sandberg first, then Blyleven, then Santo. >>

I agree JamesI. All three should be in the HOF. Ted Simmons is probably right behind them in terms of merit. 2B, 3B, and C should not be held to the same standard as 1B and OF. Sandberg needs to get in before the Biggio, Alomar, and Kent group becomes eligible or else he will have a difficult time. Other than the Big Four (Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez) and perhaps dealing with the onslaught of relievers, I don't see a whole lot of competition for Blyleven down the pike so perhaps his candidacy will ironically gain in popularity over time.

[Piazzadelivery]

Kevin Mass needs to be in the hallowed HOF.

[SmedIndy]

Kevin Maas??? :eek: :loud:

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Kevin Maas??? :eek: :loud:

Why not Lu Clinton ? :mad: :rolleyes:

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Jim Rice wouldn't disgrace the HOF if selected. Rice, however, is, by no means, the best player outside the HOF who has been denied by the writers at least once.

To wit:

Ron Santo
Gary Carter
Tony Oliva
Stan Hack
Bert Blyleven
Dale Murphy
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Graig Nettles
Luis Tiant
Vada Pinson
Bobby Grich
Lou Whitaker
Minnie Minoso
Ted Simmons
Lance Parrish
Alan Trammell

I would argue that every one of the above-listed players had a more valuable career than Jim (GIDP) Rice, whose stats are skewed by Fenway something fierce.

I've avoided this one for quite a while... but, today, I'll jump into the pool.

Carter is now in. Santo should be in. Probably Sandberg, too. (But I wouldn't be overly disappointed if he didn't make it, either... he's right on the bubble.)

After that, there's no one here (and I'm using this list not to pick on Fuzzy; it's a pretty inclusive list of the borderliners) who strikes me as a giant of the game. Yes, the recent inductions of Maz, Perez and (some say) Cepeda there's been a recent watering down of standards. So, I don't want to use the "Tony Perez is in, so [blank] should be in, too" arguement.

All of the guys listed above (minus Carter and Santo) were all very, very good players. Some had moments of absolute brilliance. Some (Murphy, Rice) had runs of incredible dominance. But they were short runs by (what I think should be) HOF standards.

Without rehashing old reasoning...
Why Not Ted Simmons, Jim Rice and Ken Boyer ? (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4887)
most of these guys belong in the Hall of Very Good.

[ronh]

Blyleven was only on 2 All-Star teams in 22 seasons. Don't you think that if he was a top pitcher of his time, HOF deserving, he would have been on more than 2 AS teams?

Giving up 96 HRs in 2 years didn't help everyones memory of him.

Also, 9 times he was in the top ten in losses for the season.

I don't think that Blyleven should be HOF.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by ronh
Blyleven was only on 2 All-Star teams in 22 seasons. Don't you think that if he was a top pitcher of his time, HOF deserving, he would have been on more than 2 AS teams?



Not necessarily - remember All Star pitchers are selected by the manager, who tend to favor picking pitchers from their own team. During Blyleven's peak years his teams tended to be also rans so he had many seasons where he pitched very well without putting up glittering W-L records

1971-127-4
1973-158-1
1974-142-2
1975-129-5
1976-125-8
1977-151-2
1978-123-10
1981-126-9
1984-142-2
1985-135-6
1989-140-4

that looks like at least eight All Star worthy seasons to me


As for losses:

Warren Spahn had nine seasons where he was in the top ten in losses, Phil Niekro nine seasons, Robin Roberts ten seasons, Ferguson Jenkins eight season, Walter Johnson nine seasons, Nolan Ryan eight seasons and Early Wynn ten seasons. What this proves is that a pitcher who eats up a lot of innings and receives a lot of decisions, will also get saddled with a lot of losses, particularly if playing for poor teams

[SmedIndy]

I discount all-star appearances - they're a half season measure at best.

And you have to be a good pitcher to lose a lot of games. He trudged out there every 4th or 5th day like clockwork, and some of his teams were less than stellar.

[ronh]

I may be wrong but no pitcher elected to the HOF in the last 20 years had been on fewer than 4 All-Star teams. If Blyleven was a HOF pitcher on poor teams you would think that he would have been the one player elected from his teams.

Tommy John and Jim Kaat were on more AS teams.

Managers selecting mainly their own players didn't start until Torre did it in the late 90s.

[SmedIndy]

OK, I'll bite. Let's start in 1972 when the Twins slid:

1972 - Rod Carew
1973 - Blyleven, Rod Carew
1974 - Rod Carew
1975 - Rod Carew
1976 - Toby Harrah (Blyeleven traded in mid season to Texas).
1977 - Bert Campineris
1978 - Willie Stargell
1979 - Dave Parker (yes, We Are Familee had only one all star)
1980 - Four Pirates
1981 - Len Barker, Bo Diaz
1982 - Injured
1983 - Sutcliffe, Trillo
1984 - Thornton

etc...

Bad teams get one all star - and it's who had the best half season.

[SmedIndy]

Continuing the list (sorry, had a meeting):

1985 - Blyleven
1986 - Kirby Puckett
1987 - Kirby Puckett
1988 - Five Twins, including Tim Laudner (!) Bert had a bad year.
1989 - Chuck Finley, Devon White

In 11 of Bert's seasons, his teams had just one all-star - and he was it only once. In 1981, they picked Len Barker based on his perfect game.

[Piazzadelivery]

Well either Bert Blyleven was A) completely overlooked by baseball people during his playing days regarding his HOF chances and skills or B) they were right and he was good but not great. I'm not sure which. It does seems kind of funny to look back on stats and start clamoring for a player to be in the HOF after a careeer in which it was rarely if ever said that he should get in WHILE HE WAS PLAYING. I must say people have ALWAYS loved his curveball. Maybe I'm off here. Does anyone on the board remember Bert being tagged by people for the HOF? If so, was it only at the very very end of his career? Other players who have been argued were talked about being HOF'ers while they played. Dale Murphy and Jim Rice and Jack Morris come to my mind....

[TimmyB]

Maybe I've missed something on Blyleven.

(Pardon if this has been posted before.) Here are his similarity scores:

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) *
*HOF

It's a little unsettling that his most similar is Don Sutton (who I look at as a borderline enshrinement), but, no doubt, he's in good company.

Looking his black/grey ink was also interesting (if only to me):
Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 113.5 (Likely HOFer > 100)

I'll change my tune a little, then, with regard to Blyleven. (ahem) It would not be a travesty if the guy got in.

[Piazzadelivery]

Once Don Sutton got 300 wins he was no longer borderline you knew he would get in...

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Piazzadelivery
Once Don Sutton got 300 wins he was no longer borderline you knew he would get in...

True. He hit a magic number. (Didn't change the way I felt about him, though.)

[BigKlu]

Dick Allen - Hitter

Bert Blyleven - Pitcher

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by Piazzadelivery
Well either Bert Blyleven was A) completely overlooked by baseball people during his playing days regarding his HOF chances and skills or B) they were right and he was good but not great. I'm not sure which. It does seems kind of funny to look back on stats and start clamoring for a player to be in the HOF after a careeer in which it was rarely if ever said that he should get in WHILE HE WAS PLAYING. I must say people have ALWAYS loved his curveball. Maybe I'm off here. Does anyone on the board remember Bert being tagged by people for the HOF? If so, was it only at the very very end of his career? Other players who have been argued were talked about being HOF'ers while they played. Dale Murphy and Jim Rice and Jack Morris come to my mind....

Yes, but I read somewhere (perhaps here in the forum) that for Morris' career numbers to be as good as Blyleven's you'd need to add three or four years worth of peak Sandy Koufax-like seasons to his record.

Again - Jack Morris was playing for good teams, Blyleven for mediocrities

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Piazzadelivery
It does seems kind of funny to look back on stats and start clamoring for a player to be in the HOF after a careeer in which it was rarely if ever said that he should get in WHILE HE WAS PLAYING.

You'd be surprised....

[JamesI]

Originally posted by BigKlu
Dick Allen - Hitter

Bert Blyleven - Pitcher

never been convinced Allen was worthy. Someone want to make a case or point out a good thread where that was already done?

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by JamesI
never been convinced Allen was worthy. Someone want to make a case or point out a good thread where that was already done?

Here's the Dick Allen thread:
Dick Allen's HOF Case (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7796&highlight=dick+allen)

[Ytown Tribe fan]

From the Hall of Fame election and voting standards:

"5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

No mention is made of Win Shares or number of home runs or RBI or World Series rings.

There are plenty of Hall of Famers of questionable sportsmanship and character and integrity. Does adding one or two more make the Hall of Fame a better institution?

Rose and Allen may be inducted someday. Maybe. Hell -- Kingman may get selected someday.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
Kingman may get selected someday.

Hmm... I can see that part about player's record and playing ability holding him back... ;)

[BigKlu]

I'm curious what you guys think of Carl Mays' ascendancy here. Is he one of the 3-5 best pitchers not in the Hall?

He's certainly received short shrift for the Chapman incident and probably would have been elected by now had it not been for that. Recognizing that you need more of an argument than just "I was better than Jesse Haines," is he really HoF material?

[pwdennis]

I've always thought Mays was worthy of the Hall of Fame

[SmedIndy]

The only reason Mays is out of the HOF was that pitch to Chapman. He had a bad rep during his time, and wasn't a popular teammate, but he was an excellent pitcher.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
The only reason Mays is out of the HOF was that pitch to Chapman. He had a bad rep during his time, and wasn't a popular teammate, but he was an excellent pitcher.

That, and the VC tended towards (besides the Negro Leaguers and the 19th C. players) nominating those with whom they had some personal experience.

And with the new VC... mostly a topic for another thread... they'll have a hard time electing anyone.

Mays doesn't have anyone to carry his torch. (And he deserves to be in.)

[RichKnowsBaseball]

In addition to the similarity scores that TimmyB posted for Bert Blyleven, I believe the following list also makes a strong case for his inclusion in the Hall of Fame:

CAREER
1970-1992

RSAA RSAA
1 Bert Blyleven 343
2 Roger Clemens 329
3 Tom Seaver 321
4 Jim Palmer 289
5 Phil Niekro 241
T6 Steve Carlton 239
T6 Dave Stieb 239
8 Gaylord Perry 228
9 Nolan Ryan 213
10 Dennis Eckersley 205

With the exception of Dave Stieb (who is one of the most underrated pitchers of the past 25 years), all of the pitchers listed above are either in the HOF or will become HOFers once they are eligible.

I recognize that this time period favors Blyleven because it covers his entire career. Nonetheless, if you run the same screen ten times using the various career lengths for each of the above pitchers, the pitcher ranked first in each of the screens is in the HOF or will be in the HOF (in the case of Clemens, who is #1 over Stieb's career).

Here is a "cleaner" period of time (the decade of the '70s):

CAREER
1970-1979

RSAA RSAA
1 Tom Seaver 281
2 Jim Palmer 280
3 Bert Blyleven 260
4 Phil Niekro 247
5 Gaylord Perry 237
6 Ferguson Jenkins 195
7 Steve Carlton 176
8 Luis Tiant 129
9 Rick Reuschel 125
10 John Hiller 122

The top seven are all in the HOF except for Blyleven, who ranks third. The two pitchers ahead of him are multiple Cy Young Award winners and first-ballot HOF inductees.

Blyleven also ranks in the top ten for the decade of the '80s, and he is second for the period in between the two decades (1975-1984), behind only Carlton, who is also a multiple Cy Young Award winner and first-ballot HOF inductee.

As a result, no matter how one slices and dices it, Blyleven is without a doubt one of the finest pitchers of his era. Among his contemporaries, I would rank him behind Seaver, Carlton, and Palmer as well as Ryan for the latter's dominance in terms of strikeouts and no hitters. I would rate him on par with Niekro, Perry, and Jenkins and ahead of Hunter and Sutton (both of whom are in the HOF), John, Kaat, and Tiant.

To recap, Blyleven ranks 12th ALL TIME in career RSAA. The top 19 on this list are all in the HOF or will be in the HOF on their first attempt (Clemens, Maddux, R. Johnson, and P. Martinez) except for Blyleven. Strikeouts? Blyleven ranks 5th. The top 13 are all in the HOF or will be in the HOF on their first attempt (Clemens and R. Johnson) except for Blyleven. Shutouts? Blyleven ranks 8th. The top 17 are all in the HOF except for Blyleven.

And for a little icing on the cake, Blyleven was the youngest player in the majors when he broke into the big leagues, the Rookie Pitcher of the Year in 1970, the Comeback Player of the Year in 1989, a member of two World Champion teams (with a post-season record of 5-1 and a 2.47 ERA), and he threw a no hitter in 1976.

[pathogan]

...and I agree.Completely

[sweaver]

The best players eligible who are not in the Hall are Ryne Sandberg and Ron Santo, oddly enough both mostly Cubs. Blyleven is high on my list of deserving players who are not in the Hall.

[RichKnowsBaseball]

After reading Lee's ATM report this morning re Mike Mussina becoming the 10th active pitcher to reach 2,000 strikeouts and ranking third all-time in strikeouts/walks ratio among those who with 2,000 Ks, I wanted to see where Bert Blyleven ranked in this category:

CAREER THROUGH 2002

STRIKEOUTS >= 2000

STRIKEOUTS/WALKS SO/BB SO
1 Pedro Martinez 4.38 2220
2 Curt Schilling 4.11 2348
3 Greg Maddux 3.28 2641
4 Dennis Eckersley 3.25 2401
5 Juan Marichal 3.25 2303
6 Ferguson Jenkins 3.20 3192
7 Randy Johnson 3.04 3746
8 Christy Mathewson 2.96 2502
9 Roger Clemens 2.96 3909
10 Sandy Koufax 2.93 2396
11 Don Drysdale 2.91 2486
12 Rube Waddell 2.88 2316
13 Jim Bunning 2.86 2855
14 Bert Blyleven 2.80 3701
15 John Smoltz 2.77 2240
16 Don Sutton 2.66 3574
17 Kevin Brown 2.63 2079
18 Tom Seaver 2.62 3640
19 Robin Roberts 2.61 2357
20 Mickey Lolich 2.58 2832

As shown, Blyleven is 14th. All of those above him and eligible for the HOF are in and the next three following Blyleven are also in. You have to scroll down to Mickey Lolich at #20 to find a pitcher who is eligible for the HOF who is not in the Hall.

[SmedIndy]

Just wondering, have we beat this into a bloody pulp?

Could any further discussions be on threads on individual players?

[Skip]

I think this is an ongoing discussion, and while it may become saturated from time to time, it is generally worth activity over time. FWIW.

[SmedIndy]

You're right Skip - I lost sight of that in my post-Commencement reporting myopia.

Discuss on, everyone!

[gyb13]

Originally posted by RichKnowsBaseball
As shown, Blyleven is 14th. All of those above him and eligible for the HOF are in and the next three following Blyleven are also in. You have to scroll down to Mickey Lolich at #20 to find a pitcher who is eligible for the HOF who is not in the Hall. actually, he's now 15th, since Mussina has joined the list at #3 ;)

[sweaver]

Ron Santo has the support of at least one member of the VC, Reds' announcer Marty Brennaman, according to this espn.com article: http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0603/1562349.html

[agirbon2]

How soon we forget. Gary Carter was elected last January. He will be inducted in July. I love to go way back to baseball's beginnings to find the best players not in the Hall. My choice....the first great pitcher in the National League....Tommy Bond.

[SmedIndy]

Bond can't make it - he doesn't have 10 years in unless they count the NA, though that didn't stop them from Addie Joss.

However, I think his 1881-84 stretch would really discount him for the HOF.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by agirbon2
My choice....the first great pitcher in the National League....Tommy Bond.

no player whose career effectively is over by age 25 is a Hall of Famer

[Craig S.]

Bond had 4 great seasons, but he also had 5 losing seasons in a 10-year career. If he'd had a few decent years after 1880, you could make more of an argument for him. Great peak value, but not sustained throughout.