On the day of Ozzie Smith’s Hall of Fame induction, I thought I’d revive a debate that we’ve had a time or two. Namely, is Bert Blyleven a Hall of Famer? Here’s an ESPN.com article that answers in the affirmative; as I’ve said many times before, I wholeheartedly agree. Consider:
[ul]
[li]Fourth all-time in strike-outs behind Roger Clemens, Steve Carlton, and Nolan Ryan.[/li][li]In twenty-two seasons, performed better than league-average in ERA seventeen times, and often substantially so. Three of the five times in which Blyleven posted a below-average ERA came at ages 37, 39, and 41.[/li][li]Top ten in ERA ten times.[/li][li]Top ten in strikeouts fifteen times.[/li][li]Top ten in shutouts ten times.[/li][li]2.47 ERA in 47.3 postseason innings.[/li][/ul]
As the ESPN.com article notes, Blyleven’s less than stellar W-L record (287-250) is largely a result for playing for poor offensive teams during much of his career. (Remember a few years ago when Kevin Brown was posting a 1-something ERA while losing again and again due to poor run support? Was that Brown’s fault?)
Additionally, Blyleven spent the overwhelming bulk of his career playing in hitters’ parks like Three Rivers, Metropolitan Stadium, and the Metrodome–his ERAs, therefore, understate his ability relative to his peers.
In the thread I linked above, RickJay does a stellar job of making the case for Blyleven being clearly HOF-worthy. I hope he doesn’t mind if I quote at length.
Referring to the Keltner List, which can give you a rough idea of whether a player is good enough for Cooperstown:
And without making an appeal to raw numbers:
To sum up, I think that the argument against Blyleven in the Hall is a circular one: “But he doesn’t seem like a Hall of Famer.” If this is the case, it is despite his years of dominance, despite his feared reputation among contemporaries, despite his stellar statistics, and despite his postseason success. There is no easily articulable reason, for example, why Nolan Ryan is lionized today and Blyleven is an afterthought (a comparison that was discussed extensively on the other thread). It is simply because it is, and it continues to be because it’s human nature to trust your preconceptions. I submit that popular perception is the only thing blocking Blyleven’s path to Cooperstown, and that this popular perception is ill-grounded by any measure.
If had won just 15 more games, he’d be an automatic HOF selection with 300 victories, regardless of any other positive aspect of his record. Having 285 + all the strikeouts ought to be equivalent.
I’ve never liked the ‘He just doesn’t seem like a Hall of Famer’ argument because it’s so subjective. There’s no means by which to measure something. And using that sort of method gets us HoFers who got a lot of TV time and those who didn’t are shut out.
Black Ink Test: BB scores a 16. The average HOFer scores about 40. Despite the big years, he never led the league in Wins or ERA. He never won a Cy Young (he placed third twice). He led in IP twice and Ks once (for a pitcher who finished so high on the list, that he led only once is shocking!).
Grey Ink Test: 239. The average HOF scoers 185. True, he was among the league leaders in almost every category for quite a few years. I’ll give him that.
Hall of Fame Standards: 50 Average HOFer gets 50. You can’t overlook the wins and strikeouts, as well as the 60 shutouts.
But does that mean that he was regarded as a dominant player during his playing career? For BB, I’m afraid the answer is no. The proof that I bring is the fact that he was selected to the All-Star game only twice during his 22 year career. Considering the fact that pitchers are selected by people who are knowledgeable in the game (the managers) and not elected in by the fans, this tells me that the managers of his day did not generally consider BB to be one of the best in the American League (or the NL for the three years he was with the Pirates). This single fact speaks volumes to me.
In short, I’m not sure I can support BB for the Hall. If he gets in, I won’t decry it as a horrible selection. The case certainly can be reasonably made for him to get in, and if he gets in, I’d welcome him with open arms. But, if it was my vote, he would fall just a tad short.
The problem with that argument december is that once you accept 285 as the equivilant of 300, then you get the same reaction for the guy who won 270 and only missed 285 by 15…
My qualifications: I ewither watched/listened to/attended most Cleveland Indian games in the period 1981-1985. Bert Blyleven was “the veteran pitcher we got from another team who cost us a bunch but is gonna save us.” We’re famous for that. Most of 'em suck.
But you have to know how bad a team 'Cleveland was in those years. Believe me, Blyleven did it all on his own. He couldn’t go out there an expect to get enough runs or defense to win. He had to limit the opposing team to few runs.
When he pitched, opposing batters feared him. He was one of the old-time throwback types, didn’t take any shit. You crowded the plate, you better fear for your life.
I “breathed” baseball in those years. Blyleven made it enjoyable to be a Cleveland fan one night per week.
NOt that Elvis will appreciate the stats but, in 1984, Blyleven was 19-7 with Cleveland. The team batting average was third lowest in the American league. We finished 19 games out that year. But who’s counting. It’s just a feeling I had that year that Blyleven was a re-incarnation of those Hall-of-Fame pitchers from the 1900-1940 period, who took their craft seriously. And he was successfull at it, for a long career.
Looking at his losses as a counter to his impressive 285 wins would be like looking at Nolan Ryan’s BB’s as a counter to his K’s. Nolan Ryan had a crummy KK/B ratio compared to Maddux and Schilling, to consider current examples. His win/loss ratio wasn’t stunning either. He was simply a dominant pitcher for years and years. Blyleven might not have been as dominant as Ryan, but he was a consistently solid force on the mound for his entire career, and his wins and K’s do represent that.
So, despite how it pains me to say this of anyone who was on those god-forsaken hanky-waving 1987 Twins, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. (And now, having said that, I’m gonna have to work off the bad karma with some lengthy, nasty rant about that dirty Frank Viola on a sports board somewhere…oh the cost of being genuine and impartial )
I happen to think that the Hall of Fame should be limited to a small, elite group of players. My gut feeling is, if you have to ASK or DEBATE whether a guy belongs in the Hall of Fame, he DOESN’T! End of story.
So, suffice it to say, Astorian’s Hall of Fame would have FAR fewer players in it than the one in Cooperstown. Bill Mazeroski? Out. Phil Rizzuto? Out.
However, my standards are NOT the standards used by the Hall in Cooperstown. Their standards have been diluted for ages. So, given the "standards: they’ve used so far, I don’t see why Bert Blyleven isn’t at LEAST as deserving as Don Sutton.
From zev_steinhardt’s link, there are 10 players considered statistically similiar to Blyleven. Eight of the ten are the hall:
Don Sutton
Gaylord Perry
Fergie Jenkins
Robin Roberts
Tom Seaver
Early Wynn
Phil Niekro
Steve Carlton
The oft-mentioned Tommy John is listed as similiar but of course isn’t in the Hall. TJ’s important stat line
W/L: 288-231
K’s: 2245
ERA: 3.24 (took a bit of a jump after the mound height adjustment, but stayed pretty consistent)
Personally, that stat line looks almost worthy of the Hall. Well Blyleven had three less wins, but 1500 more K’s and an ERA .03 lower. Consistency and longevity are definitely elements that impact this, maybe Blyleven was never particularly dominating in any one year, but it adds up. This should be a valid argument for the Hall.
Blyleven is at #4 in K’s all time. You have to go all the way down to Mickey Lolich at #14 to find someone who isn’t either presently in the Hall or a shoe-in for the Hall first-ballot.
Are his K’s legitimate, considering how long he played? Hank Aaron never hit more than 47 HRs in a season, but he consistently finished in the top 5-10 of the NL. He only won a single MVP award in his entire career, very early in his career in 1957. Nobody accuses Hank Aaron of simply having been around so long his stats were inflated.
I think the people who watched him pitch, like samclem, they’re in a good position to judge how good a pitcher he was. And I’m not worried about Blyleven’s entry opening the floodgates to lesser quality pitchers. I’d like to know who it is that we’re really worried is better than Blyleven but not worthy of going into the hall, so worried that we’d keep Blyleven out to avoid setting precedent.
That’s not valid. No matter where you set the line, there will ALWAYS be players who are right on the border and elicit debate. In your case, you could tussle with players who are REALLY elite versus those who are REALLY, REALLY elite.
Well, the obvious logical problem here is that no matter where you put the line, someone will be right on it. There are 200 players or so in the Hall of Fame, which puts Bert Blyleven close to the line. If you want that number reduced to 20, well, Bert’s no longer an issue - but now we have to argue about Mike Schmidt, who MIGHT be the 20th best player of all time, but might only be 23rd, depending who you ask. There will always be someone whose credentials are worth debating.
If we decide that guys like Rizzuto, Maz, etc. aren’t worthy, next year we’ll just be debating over Al Simmons and Ted Lyons, and then when we kick them out there will be a debate over Willie McCovey and Schmidt, and next thing you know the only Hall of Famer will be Babe Ruth.
To my mind, the number of players in is generally correct. We have gone through 150 or so seasons of legitimate major league baseball, counting from roughly 1885 onwards and adding extra years for the Negro Leagues. Given that there’s a little more than 200 guys in, that’s just short of 3 guys for every two seasons. Inducting about 3 players every two years seems a reasonable thing to me. The inductions so far include many turkey choices, which is unfortunate, but that doesn’t mean the RATE of induction is wrong.
I would be inclined to dispute the import of this. If the All-Star game counted for something - if the managers managed and selected with winning as their only - or even primary - goal, you’d have a good argument. But by and large, the All-Star game is treated as purely exhibition, and players are selected accordingly. So it would follow that BB would be victimized by the same factors in AS selection as in HOF selection - moreso in fact. If a manager had a choice of selecting a pitcher who was 12-4 with a 3.42 ERA or a guy who was 8-7 with a 2.91, he would likely select the former, even if he believed that the latter would give him a better chance to win.
Having said that, I don’t see where anyone in tis thread has made a clear case that BB definitely belongs in the HOF - only that he doesn’t definitely belong out of it. As others have noted, the cut-off line must be drawn somewhere - maybe BB just happens to be just to the wrong side of this fine and fuzzy line.
I post at baseball-almanac.com, and we have a member whose screen name is bly11, so obviously he would appreciate this discussion. BTW, to add to the stat discussion: he’s the 2nd winningest pitcher not in (John), most ShO not in, most IP not in, and 2nd most HR allowed not in (Tannana).
Since my name’s been brought up, I’ll simply answer by asking what new information has been brought to light since the last time Gadarene et al. have picked at their scabs. If not, there is no reason to do so again.
He hasn’t gotten any more, or less, worthy since he retired, nor have the standards changed, since the last time this came up. Good day, gentlemen.
I wasn’t here for the first discussion. I thought Blyleven deserved to make the HOF when he retired, thought he deserved to make the HOF when he first became eligible, and still feel that he should be in the HOF.
Jonathan Chance: Crying shame Ron Santo isn’t in the Hall of Fame; I absolutely agree.
zev: I think Izzy makes a really good point about the lack of All-Star Game appearances (which are puzzling for someone who contemporaries describe as having the most wicked curveball in baseball history). Managers don’t always judge based on the most relevant criteria–and there’s always the “every team must be represented” rule that means there will be deserving players on the outside looking in at each All-Star break. Somewhat comparably, look at Rafael Palmeiro–he’s quietly put together a Hall of Fame-ish career (which may be the crux of this argument-: can someone do such a thing quietly?)–while managing only four All-Star appearances in sixteen years. Obviously, you can generally expect a HOF-caliber player to be a perennial All-Star…but I honestly don’t think it’s a fatal blow to his candidacy if he isn’t.
samclem: That was a great post. Thanks for sharing those memories.
RexDart: Compelling, well-articulated arguments.
Izzy: I appreciate what you’re saying. Here’s my question: What would, to you*, make a clear case for Blyleven being in the Hall? Would fifteen more wins do it? Another world championship? Greater name recognition? Some different way of looking at his accomplishments? I’m sincerely curious.
Elvis: I guess I’d pose the same question to you, if you want to play (it’s all in fun, you know!). What would turn the tide, in your opinion? Do you think that Blyleven’s the best pitcher not in the HOF? Are there others better than him who haven’t made it yet? Or do you–and again, I’m being sincere–abjure any arguments that involve his statistical accomplishments, and base your position on the fact that he just isn’t famous enough for the Hall of Fame? A creditable point, though I think we’d have to do a little housecleaning if we were to adhere to that standard. Or does fame among his contemporaries count just as well? In which case, would documentary evidence from players concerning his fearsomeness suffice? samclem’s already given the fan’s perspective.
I guess I’m just trying to figure out the criteria people use to determine that Blyleven doesn’t make the cut. I’ve given the criteria to show why I think he does.
Another point regarding pitchers and the All-Star Game to follow up on Gadarene’s reasoning. The problem of the one person per team rule is particularly compelling in the case of pitchers. At least 8 of the position players are chosen by fans, but manager has to use his discretion on all 9 pitchers and the positional backups. So the pitching staff is a good place to meet the requirement. Most pitching staffs have at least one decent pitcher with 8-9 wins at that point of the season and an ERA in the middle 3’s. It’s pretty easy to just plug in the #1 starter from one of these teams to fill the one player requirement.
BB had one of the best curve balls ever. I got to see him pitch in the Metrodome, and I saw some batters bail out and just watch as the ball crossed the plate. Helluva hook.
Yes, I’d say the Dutchman qualifies for the HOF.
(PS- Just recently he called a bloop single a “duck fart” during a Twins telecast. Gotta love the guy.)
)