I don’t understand your argument Elvis, so what if those were the metrics they used then, why should we apply them NOW in trying to determine if he belongs in the HOF? We currently have a better historical perspective and better anlaytical methods to judge and the idea that Bert Blyleven does not belong in the HOF seems very puzzling given that.
Because the Hall is for the greatest players of the eras in which they played. Of course eras are different, that’s why we call them eras. How is that hard to understand?
Because I don’t understand why we are supposed to use the same STANDARDS from the era. I have no problem with comparing players to their contemporaries, but I find nothing particularly compelling about using the standards from that era to compare players.
But you called them generations earlier. Baseball eras are pretty distinct time periods. Our current one has been 1969-present day (though you could certainly argue for some sort of pre- and post-steroid era for statistical purposes). Baseball generations and eras are different creatures.
Elvis’ argument, though he may not realize it, is that Bert wasn’t considered an elite pitcher when he was playing. Therefore, he shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame now.
There’s a certain logic to this, but I’m much more likely to conclude that Bert played most of his career under the collective radar–including my own–than that Bert didn’t have a Hall of Fame career. I’ll reiterate: Bert has more strikeouts than anyone not in the Hall of Fame (and more strikeouts than about 95% of pitchers who ARE enshrined in Cooperstown). He has FAR more shutout games than anyone not in the Hall of Fame–and, again, more than about 90% (or more) of all past honorees. These are jaw-dropping accomplishments. I’ll let the more SABRmetric among us regale us with more analytical criteria (though I suspect he does quite well in these measures, too), but strikeouts and shutouts are traditional barometers for lifetime accomplishment, and he’s an upper-tier pitcher by these metrics.
I’ll concede that Bert wasn’t exactly considered a god of the mound during his playing days, and that’s why he’s not in now. Contrary to popular perception, many of the beat writers who vote aren’t baseball specialists. When they hear “Bert Blyleven for the Hall of Fame”, they crinkle their noses and say “THAT guy?” While he pitched, he didn’t excite the imagination like Dwight Gooden or even Orel Hershiser. Bert built his career on steady performances, not monster years. As a result, he took a pass on superstardom, but his career is a Hall of Fame one. No, he wasn’t a perennial all-star, but balanced against what Bert did with his time in the majors, I really don’t give a damn.
Specifically, no knuckleballer has ever won the Cy Young Award, even in some years where they clearly have the best stats in the league–except for wins, because knuckleballers tend to play for poorer teams.
Lots. Ty Cobb. Honus Wagner. Rogers Hornsby. Tris Speaker. Walter Johnson. Christy Matthewson. Even Cy Young himself.
Hey, you asked.
Those aren’t “standards.” A “standard” is a specific benchmark or qualification, like “500 homers” or “never bet on baseball.” “Sportsmanship” is not a standard; you could apply standards to it, though, like “never threw a broken bat at anyone” or “wasn’t ejected ten times in his career.” What standards does Blyleven not meet? Where are they written?
You’re actually trotting out the No True Scotsman argument? Carl Yasztrzemski wasnt a great player?
Al Kaline played most if his career on bad Tiger teams.
Detroit was a good team most of Kaline’s career.
Because it elevates the choices/opinions of major league managers (for the ASG) into that of some sort of infallible prophets. There’s much better evidence to rely on than ASG appearances (oh, I don’t know, like ERA, strikeouts, walks allowed, home runs allowed, those kinds of arcane and meaningless types of measurements). And I pointed out how Bert was much better in the 2nd half, at which time he wasn’t able to make a further case for the ASG (something else I wrote that you ignored).
Because I fail to see how any of these standards iirrecovably sinks Blyleven’s candidacy. He got some very impressive career counting stats as well as seasonal stats, had the talent (curve and control and savvy), wasn’t a cheater or a gambler or a jerk, and helped 2 teams win World Championships. On which of these counts does he fail so spectacularly for you, exactly? That’s why I accused you of being disingenuous-you’ve completely failed to explain how he doesn’t live up to these (admittedly subjective) standards in comparison to comparable HoF pitchers (which I mentioned upthread)-what makes the likes of Jenkins, Ryan, Ruffing, Jim Palmer, et al. so special and Blyleven so unworthy?
And what RickJay said.
Because he wasn’t getting the support from his teammates that he needed to win more games, even (or rather especially) in comparison to that of his colleagues in his team’s rotation. Simple as that.
His “facts” include ERA/ERA+, his K/W ratio, his generally good HR rate (until late in his career), and so on-facts you keep ignoring completely. Why is that?
Okay, facts. I’ll choose one comparable season for both Blyleven and another contemporary pitcher, Jim Palmer, who just so happened to win the CY in the year in question:
1973
Blyleven’s run support
4.13 (Twins overall scored 4.56/game, and 4.70 in games not started by him)
Blyleven’s runs allowed/9 (includes unearned runs) and ERA
3.01/2.52
Palmer’s run support
4.68 (O’s overall: 4.65)
Palmer’s runs allowed/9 and ERA
2.61/2.40
Okay, so you’ll undoubtedly point to the runs allowed/ERA and shout, “Palmer’s better!” But a closer examination reveals a few subtleties. First of all, Palmer’s excellent defense (which included Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, and Bobby Grich) allowed only 7 unearned runs behind him-Blyleven’s Twins 18. The O’s defense undoubtedly also helped prevent a bunch of hits too (something that ERA won’t tell you). Palmer’s K/W ratio is surprisingly mediocre (even by the low-K 70’s standards), at a meager 1.39:1 (he had better years tho). Blyleven’s is 3.85:1, vastly superior.
Blyleven’s offense gave him 0, 1, 2, or 3 runs to work with a whopping 22 times (more than half of his starts). I don’t care who you are-Sandy Koufax, Pedro Martinez, or Walter Freakin’ Johnson, nobody’s going to have a winning record in 22 games like that. Palmer? Only 15 times.
Because the O’s offense and defense helped Palmer out so much more than the Twins did Blyleven, Palmer goes 22-9 and wins the Cy-Bert goes 20-17 and is a non-contender. How is any of that Blyleven’s fault? Point is that pitching wins require help from your teammates-the fact that the voters back then (not so much now, <cough> Grienke & Lincecum </cough>) didn’t seem to understand that shouldn’t hamstring us from recognizing Bert’s greatness. Switch their teams and Palmer is the non-entity and Bert wins more than 22 games I’d say.
(and yes I think Bert was better than Palmer, in this year and for their careers.)
Unless you are willing to address these facts head on (since you’re the one who brought up that word) in a spirit of open inquiry, this will be the last substantive post I’ll make on the matter.
When determining who, at the time, was considered the greatest players? Remember the caution about anachronism in choosing one’s standards.
No. I did mention that, if your argument is that he wasn’t anything special for fully half of each season, then you’re not helping his case.
They don’t. It’s a preponderance of the evidence, both tangible and intangible, in comparison with his contemporaries that matters. There are some strong positives, but few of you for some reason will admit that there are some strong negatives as well. Remember that the Hall is for the greatest players - and if you have to think about it much, then the right answer is probably No.
Did you also ignore the point about the greatest players making their teams better?
Meh. If you don’t like the Hall’s standards, then go start your own.
Better go find out what that is, champ.
WTF? He’s why Boston won the '67 pennant. Gawd. :rolleyes:
I was questioning the comment that they typically get stuck on bad teams. Who did James mean? Niekro and Wakefield? :dubious:
The fact that you had to give a facetious answer is an answer in itself.
Gawdamn: rolleyes: I know very well what I’m arguing, but some of you have been having a very hard time with it. Don’t project the petulance shown by Munch et al. onto the person they’re reacting to, m’kay?
Do please note that roughly 3/8 of the Hall electorate, although they may each have their own rationales, come to the same conclusion. Or maybe they really are all just “stupid”.
Very possibly. But then you have to wonder if you and everyone else just didn’t see what was there, or if it really wasn’t there after all. He was very, very good, sure - and so were hundreds of guys who were just a little short of being the greatest of their times.
And there you have it. Thanks.
Then If you don’t see that the game has changed significantly and continually throughout its history, including from the 70’s/80’s to today, then I can’t help you further.
Nobody’s denying he only went to the All-Star game twice. That seems to be the primary negative. It’s really the only area in which he doesn’t match up to similar candidates.
So, there it is. He only appeared in two All-Star games. Looking at the proponderance of the evidence, I still think he’s a Hall of Famer.
Blyleven did make his teams better.
Indeed, without Blyleven, the Twins would certainly have not won the World Series in 1987, and it’s likely the Pirates wouldn’t have won it in 1979. Blyleven helped a lot of teams win a lot of games.
The Hall of Fame’s only standards are that the player be nominated by their selection committee to be on the ballot, which requires fives ears of retirement from playing and ten years of mostly regular playing service, or to be selected through the other committees that are struck from time to time. The quote you keep repeating is not a list of “standards.” Blyleven meets the official standards. Beyond that the only standard is whether the writers or the VC put you in or not.
Wow, one whole pennant! Really? Oh, no, wait, he was on a pennant winner in 1975, too. Two pennants in a career of only 23 years. The guy was practically Mr. Playoffs.
The fact is Yastrzemski was a truly great player whose career was played mostly on teams that either weren’t very good or simply choked. For a great player to be stuck on a mediocre team for a long time is not at all remarkable. The Senators were not exactly the picture of glory and triumph when Walter Johnson was there; they didn’t make the World Series until his 18th year on the team. Ernie Banks had a hell of a run for a team that’s been defining futility since Walter Johnson was a sophomore. Ted Williams’s teams were famed for choking. Nolan Ryan didn’t play on a lot of great teams - his one World Series win was when he was a second-string kid.
You’re confused about basic eligibility requirements with the standards for selection, a list which you find so offensive you claim it shouldn’t even apply and therefore doesn’t, so there too! Except now you’ve gone further, to claiming it doesn’t even exist. That’s, um, remarkable.
You really do need to make more of an effort to find examples for your arguments. Or, better yet, begin to try to derive your arguments from the realm of fact.
There really ought to be an SDMB version of Sunday Night Football’s “C’mon, Guy!” segment just for you and Munch.
I’m sorry - is this coming from the guy deriving his argument from nebulous “rules” that exist within their own ill-defined periods of time that you can’t enumerate? Yeah - I’ll just remain petulent at your superior use of these “facts”.
Which is completely bogus. The Veteran’s Committee was designed, in part, to give more modern observers second looks at candidates which were passed over the first time (sometimes, but not always) due to institutional blindness. George Davis, Joe Gordon, and Richie Ashburn are each excellent examples of this. Davis was a solid all-around SS who did a bunch of things well, so he flew under the radar of the VC members when they were charged with electing the “old timers” (generalists are typically underrated, specialists overrated). Gordon’s .268 average put many voters off for many years, but he was otherwise a great 2B, could turn two like crazy, had power and drew lots of walks. Ashburn had the misfortune of playing when 3 top tier CFers were his contemporaries, and voters got it in their heads that CFers should hit like LFer and RFers to be worthy, on top of being good defenders. Ashburn hit for a high average, like Gordon got lots of walks (see a pattern?), and could track anything down in the outfield (I’ll note since Willie Mays got in, the Hall has seen fit to elect just one CFer since then-the iffy Kirby Puckett, so this unfair standard is still holding a bit). That the HoF is compelled to rigidly obey whatever standards of excellence existed when the candidate in question played is purely a delusion in your own mind, and nothing else.
Take a remedial reading comprehension class. The point was that, by doing much better in the 2nd half (he was hardly dogmeat in the first BTW), he couldn’t grab the attention of the ASG managers. It’s a minor negative in any event.
A weasely argument if I ever heard it, as you can define better however you like and thus pork his candidacy in your own mind. In terms of the support both his offense and defense gave him, yes Blyleven made his teams better even if his W-L record wasn’t quite up to the standards of contemporaries like Palmer. You’re taking the position that we should screw Blyleven in the voting just because his teammates didn’t play well behind him, something he had little ability to control. Nobody, not even Jack Morris, can consistently “pitch to the score” and consistently win more games than his own performances and that of his teammates would ordinarily permit (as in winning by 2 to 1, 3 to 2, 4 to 3, etc.). The only reason people are hung up on Blyleven is the wins-in every other statistical measure he’s overqualified, and is measurably superior to the other 280 game winners, Kaat and Tommy John.
He also had the misfortune of playing on a lot of lousy teams.
In his 15 seasons, he went to the World Series once (1950 Phillies, who were swept), and otherwise, his team finished in the bottom half of the NL 9 times (including 3 last-place finishes).
No, not so much that, as to simple nonexposure of many worthy candidates to enough voters in the days when travel was by train and to only 7 other cities a year, and there was no TV Game of the Week at all. Voters who weren’t in one of the few MLB cities didn’t get to see everyone, and those who were in a single-league city didn’t get to see anybody in the other league. Those writers only knew what other writers put in the wire-service stories or maybe the Police Gazette about some people, and it was easy to discount that as coming from fellow professional bullshitters, right?
Later it became a vehicle for Frankie Frisch, as chairman, to get all of his Giants and Cardinals teammates in. 
Then Buck O’Neil and the entire KC Monarchs roster.
But even though it’s true that standards have often been applied anachronistically (as well as with favoritism) by the old codgers, and that stats-based PR campaigns made by individuals on personal crusades have been effective as well, that was never the committee’s primary purpose.
C’mon, guy!
He wasn’t “dogmeat”, no, but what I said :dubious: is that you’re arguing is that he wasn’t that special for half the season. Yes, it’s a negative. Minor, though? Half the season is minor?
Largely an intangible and subjective point, not easily quantified, so it has to be denigrated. Sad.
I already discussed that point. :shrug:
At this point I am going to respectfully agree to disagree with Elvis on Blyleven’s candidacy for the HOF.
Ditto. He’s not going to be persuaded, but kudos to you guys for trying.
Superhal:
On base percentage correlates better with run-scoring than pretty much any other rate or counting stat out there, and run-scoring is (obviously) the single most important offensive predictor of wins. OBP isn’t “new school SABR,” unless you count Branch Rickey as part of that school.
Raines is clearly deserving. Here’s my full ballot:
Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Martinez and Dawson are borderline for me. In an ideal world, Larkin and Trammell should be locks, considering the dearth of shortstops in the Hall (I think it’s the second-least represented position behind third base – maybe there are fewer catchers as well). In this world, sadly, I’d be shocked if either of them ever makes it. Ditto Raines.
Meanwhile Jim Rice and Bruce Sutter are in… 
Saw an interesting stat today - Tony Gwynn has two seasons in his career that had an OPS+ higher than Edgar’s *lifetime *OPS+.