Here’s an illuminating article on Blyleven’s qualifications for the Hall. Seems to specifically refute some of your arguments, ElvisL1ves.
You must have read only the parts you wanted to - this guy wanted to make the case for Blyleven being on the HOF side of the border, but wound up admitting he wasn’t really great and was still just borderline. He had to ignore his own arguments to conclude Morris doesn’t belong.
Just ask this: When you think of the great pitchers of the 70’s and 80’s, how far down the list do you have to go to get to Blyleven? Farther than Morris, right?
This is yet another case of being way too attracted to numbers just because they’re available (and Bill James is the sickest puppy there is in that regard). The game is played by humans, not robots, and numbers are just one part of it. But suit yourself - part of the fun of being a sports fan is being able to argue.
Are you kidding me? Where in that article did he wind up admitting that Blyleven “wasn’t really great?” And what conclusion did he come to? Seems like you’re the one doing the selective reading, frankly…
I’d appreciate a response to mine and RickJay’s posts on the topic, as well. 
I don’t think Morris was as great as Blyleven. If you asked me to rank all the pitchers who pitched the bulk of their careers over those two decades, I’d rank them
- Seaver
- Neikro (Phil, not Joe)
- Carlton
- Palmer
- Ryan
- Blyleven
Sixth best pitcher in that period of time is a heck of an accomplishment. He’s not a first-tier Hall of Famer like Tom Seaver, but IMO he’s qualified.
Compare Blyleven to Nolan Ryan. Who’s got a better record?
Ryan: 324-292 .526 32 games about .500
Blyleven: 287-250 .534 37 games above .500
Blyleven’s career record was arguably BETTER THAN NOLAN RYAN. A higher winning percentage, a few more games above .500 despite having fewer decisions, and his career ERA was 18% better than league average versus 11% for Ryan. For all the strikeouts and no-hitters, Ryan wasn’t really any better than Blyleven was. And Blyleven struck a few guys out, too. If you’ve got a better record than frigging Nolan Ryan, that’a strong Hall of Fame argument, isn’t it? Just the fact that you can compare him to Ryan says a lot.
Bill James? You haven’t been reading much baseball research; James is a very entrenched moderate. He’s famous for being the first guy to come up with some of this stuff but he’s not a strict numbers freak or even close to it. In fact, many of the statheads hold him in some degree of contempt for hiw willingness to see ballplayers as humans.
There’s not much point in trying to discuss the point with those who have the mindset that, because statistics are available, they’re all that matter. I’d rather be a true fan of the game, its history, and the people who make it up than a “stathead”, using RickJay’s term. It’s too easy for those types to consider a number significant just because it has mathematical definition. If there are far worse cases than Bill James, then I stand corrected, but I also stand a little scared.
But even on that basis, you can’t have it both ways. Either wins and losses are determining factors or they’re not. RickJay wants to put Blyleven in on the basis that he had better teams behind him for most of his career than Ryan. He also wants career no-hitters, incredible longevity, the fear he induced in his opponents, and his overall stature in the game to be ignored, apparently on the basis that the numbers aren’t absorbing enough. Gadarene apparently agrees.
In a word, pishtosh. A fan, as opposed to a stathead, would laugh at the idea that Blyleven was on the same level as Ryan. And most HOF voters are apparently fans.
Gadarene, yes, I did read that article (I’m a devoted fan of Bill Simmons, btw - one of the great sportswriters today). His pal’s article was indeed full of apologies for considering Blyleven, but you can go back and read it yourself if you want quotes. Gimme a break.
Now, both of you, sometime on a lazy night this summer, go to your local ballpark on some night with a tacky promotion. Try putting the Baseball Abstract and your scorecard and just absorb the sights and sounds and rhythms of the game, imagine yourself in the body of one of the players and try to see the game through his eyes. How’s this pitcher’s curveball breaking tonight? Has he got control? Where’s this next one coming, and should I swing? Is the runner on first going, and how is the infield set? The crack of the bat, everyone in motion, field, throw, pulled the first baseman off the bag, relay to home …
Betcha before long you won’t be thinking of computer spreasheets showing what pitches he used 37% of the time to get right-handed power hitters over 6’1" out with on 2-2 counts with 2 outs in 1997 on Tuesday night games before his rotator cuff surgery, and similar stuff. No, you might turn into a fan instead.
What a ridiculous straw man you’ve set up. 'Preciate it.
Blyleven–incredible longevity? Check. Fear induced in opponents? Check. Sixty career shutouts? Third all-time in strikeouts? Postseason success? ERA well above league average? Check, check, check, check.
I’m not saying Blyleven is as good a pitcher as Nolan Ryan (though I do think Ryan is a tad overrated). I’m just saying he’s Hall of Fame caliber.
Anyway, I’m assuming based on your convictions that you were around to watch Bert Blyleven play for the length of his career, and know first hand that he wasn’t a good enough pitcher for the Hall of Fame. Certainly you’re not basing your opinion of his deservedness on stats, right?
You seem to lay out your criteria right here:
To the first part of that, here’s an excerpt from that article:
And what do you mean, exactly, by him not having “a record of being at his best when it counted most?” 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in the postseason is pretty crappy, I’ll agree. :rolleyes:
Ah, the usual call of the Guy Who Just Lost An argument About a Baseball Player.
I’m not sure where you got the idea I think that only statistics matter just be virtue of the fact that I used some to bolster an argument for Bert Blyleven’s HoF credentials, but it’s an amazingly erroneous conclusion.
I’ll stack my fandom of the game, its history, and its beauty against yours any day of the week, pal. I’m as dyed-in-the-wool a baseball fan as there is, and to say I’m not because I looked up Bert Blyleven’s career stats when discussing his career is akin to saying I can’t enjoy a sunset because I know the sun is 93 million miles away.
Baseball statistics are merely one part of the fabric of the greatest, most beautiful, most perfect sport ever created. I appreciate it all. Thanks for the “advice,” but it’s based on a false premise.
In all my time on the SDMB, I doubt I have ever had a post so deliberately misrepresented. To briefly cover this nonsensical paragraph:
-
Where the hell did I say Bert Blyleven had better teams behind him? What does that have to do with it? (He didn’t have better teams behind him, anyway.)
-
Where the hell did I suggest that no-hitters, longetivity, and stature should be ignored? Did you divine that from tea leaves? I DID say I thought Ryan was greater than Blyleven, didn’t I? I didn’t pick him above Blyleven because “Blyleven” is hard to spell, you know.
-
Last but not least, I don’t want to put Bert Blyleven in the Hall of Fame because he was or wasn’t better than Nolan Ryan. He should be in the Hall of Fame because he was a magnificent pitcher.
If you want a non-sabermetrical argument for Bert Blyleven, here it is; He was a great pitcher. Anyone who WATCHED him pitch could see he was a great pitcher. He was intimidating as hell, throwing vicious fastballs and what many Hall of Fame hitters claim was the greatest curveball ever thrown, all with outstanding control. He pitched really, really well, for a long time. He led his team to the World Series twice and pitched brilliantly in the postseason (which you’re on record as being completely wrong about.)
The whole point behind using statistics to frame the discussion is to define things like “He pitched really, really well,” or else we’d have to elect John Denny. I’m not asking that they enshrine a Strat-O-Matic card, I’m asking that they enshrine one of the most dominating pitchers of his era, a guy who might well have thrown the best curveball in the history of the sport, who struck out guys left, right and center, and who wears two World Series rings. If those things aren’t good enough for you, explain why, but so far the substance of your rebuttal is that you don’t know a damned thing about Blyleven and we’re all somehow a bunch of jerks because we DO know.
And since I felt Ryan was greater, I guess this is a non sequitur.
Oh, please. I’ve gone to more ballgames, eaten more ballpark hot dogs, watched more little league, high school, and minor league baseball, read more funny Lee Allen stories, and generally partaken in the little pleasures of baseball than you even know exist. I’ve played, coached AND umpired Little League, played thousands and thousands of ballgames myself, made great plays, errors, swatted home runs, stolen bases, and once got beaned so badly I had a concussion. I know the game’s little hints, strategies, and nuances better than you do and certainly better than some of the clowns who play for the Blue Jays now. I have lived and died a thousand times a thousand deaths with my team, with the Jays (I don’t miss a game for any reason short of war or general anasthesia) and indeed with every team I watch. Hell, I mark the passage of my life by baseball events; I find it hard to think of the years 1981 and 1994 as being as long as other years. I’ve lived, slept, eaten and breathed more baseball than you can take, and all that doesn’t count because I knew Bert Blyleven was 287-250? Your implication that I’m somehow not a baseball fan because I once read a Baseball Abstract and had the presence of mind to examine Blyleven’s statistical credentials is
A) Factually wrong to the point of absurdity,
B) Arrogant and insulting, and
C) Just a cover, anyway.
You don’t like Bert Blyleven’s Hall of Fame candidacy? Fine. You want to insult me with lies and nonsense? Fine, it’s your credibility you’re damaging.
Bill Simmons, who is a far better writer than I, did a much better job here of explaining how statistics fetishism can actually interfere with one’s understanding and appreciation of sports.
Great…now you have to demonstrate that RickJay and I are statistics fetishists; a difficult task, since it simply ain’t so.
Nice try, though–when you can’t pierce the arguments, dismiss their proponents as being of a class of people not fully appreciative of the situation. :rolleyes:
Which currently active players have already achieved hall of fame status? That is that they are in based on what they have already accomplished, as opposed to future projections, and would be elected if they retired today. I nominate the following six (in no particular order):
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Ricky Henderson
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken
Barry Bonds
Possibly - Ken Griffey and Sammy Sosa
Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs are also in, but I think they may have retired.
Boggs retired after 99, but Gwynn will be back in 2001 with the Padres.
Izzy: Good question. Do you mean those who would be locks for the HOF were they to retire right now, or those who should be? Maybe there’s no distinction to be made there.
I agree with your list. To it, I would add the following names:
Frank Thomas is borderline right now; he should make it if he has two or three more seasons of 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, .300+ BA, .400+ OBP, .500+ SLG. Not too difficult, if he truly has rebounded from his 1998-99 decline. (Too many statistics for you there, Elvis?)
Tom Glavine, IMHO, also needs a few more good seasons to really be considered a lock–he’s really close now, though, especially given the offensive explosion of the last few years.
Mike Piazza is the best offensive catcher since Josh Gibson. He’s only played for nine years, but if he retired tomorrow it’s likely the wear and tear of his position would be taken into account and he’d be inducted.
Roberto Alomar is someone who might not be inducted when he first becomes eligible, but he’s certainly proven himself worthy of the Hall. Barry Larkin, as well.
Ken griffey, Jr. is the other way around: he will certainly be elected on the first ballot, even if he retired tomorrow, but he could probably stand a few more years of high achievement. He’ll get in, though, pretty much no matter what.
Statistical plateaus are in good part meaningless–especially pitcher wins, dependent as they are on the number of runs your teams scores for you–but if Randy Johnson reaches 200 wins he’s got a guaranteed ticket to Cooperstown.
Then you have people like Pedro Martinez, Alex Rodriguez, Kevin Brown, Nomar Garciaparra, Derek Jeter, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Ivan Rodriguez, and (though it’s early) Vladimir Guerrero and Andruw Jones. Their careers are shaping up to be of HOF quality, but they need at least four or five (more, in the case of the youngsters) years of greatness before they can be considered locks.
I don’t really have anything to add to this debate, except that, with an active Hall of Fame thread running, I’d like to comment:
Rest in peace, Eddie Mathews.
Thank you.
Gwynn’s still active. He is a lock.
Griffey’s a lock. Sosa would probably make it if he retired tomorrow, but will certainly make it if he continues playing a few more years. He’s still a tremendous hitter, and in a way he’s a better hitter than ever - he’s much more patient and consistent now - so I expect him to end up whomping 500-600 homers, at least.
IMO, Glavine is a lock. You don’t really notice him now, but his career record is terrific, he’s won the Cy Young Award twice, has a World Series ring and World Series MVP, and he’s pitched more playoff games than most teams’ entire staffs. He has led his league in wins five times. He’s pitched more or less non stop for thirteen years at a level that can only be described as true greatness. No-brainer. And he probably has a lot more left in him, too.
Randy Johnson’s an interesting case. His career right now is quite comparable to Ron Guidry. Maybe, maybe not, but he’ll probably rack up several more big years and get in easy.
David Cone probably won’t make it unless he makes a remarkable comeback from last year’s horror.
You don’t usually think of Rafael Palmiero as a Hall of Famer, but he’ll probably make it.
Fred McGriff has a chance, depending on how his career plays out.
RickJay: Here’s a brief discussion of Johnson’s HoF chances, esp vis a vis Glavine.
cmkeller: Thanks for noting Matthews’ death. In many ways a sad guy: always 2nd on his team to Aaron, passed by Schmidt as top third-baseman, logged 3 miserable years managing a miserable Braves team, got so far into the bottle he couldn’t hold a baseball job, suffered a boating injury that crushed his pelvis. But one sweet LH swing and eye-popping power. An inner circle HoFer.
Did you see where Bob Buhl died last night? Long time Brave and Matthews’ road roommate for years. 166-132, 3.55, 15 years.