Roberto Alomar Misses HOF election by 8 votes

[Dipre]

Couple more interesting notes from Rich Lederer:

 

Bert Be Home By Eleven?

By Rich Lederer

 

Despite ranking fifth in career strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 27th in wins, Bert Blyleven inexplicably remains on the outside of Cooperstown looking in.

 

DSCN0185_3.jpgI have been knocking on the doors of the Hall of Fame since December 2003. Blyleven's voting percentage has climbed from 29% that year to 41% in 2005, 48% in 2007, and 63% in 2009. He is trending well but still needs to get to the 75% threshold to receive his just due.

 

According to Sky Andrecheck, "No player in the last 25 years has seen his vote totals rise so sharply and not been enshrined in the Hall. I wouldn't bet on Blyleven being the first."

 

Let's hope Sky is right. In the meantime, the two most widely heard arguments against Blyleven's qualifications for the Hall of Fame involve his lack of All-Star Game appearances and poor showings in the Cy Young Award balloting. While I have refuted both of these concerns many times in the past (see multiple links to the Bert Blyleven Series in the sidebar to the left), I am going to take another shot at it today, asking questions and providing answers (including an excerpt from what I wrote in December 2006).

 

How many times did the All-Star Game manager pick nine or ten *starting* pitchers during Blyleven's career? I might be wrong, but I would be surprised if ten starters (without double counting injured and replacements) were ever selected for a single ASG during his career. A few nines but mostly six, seven, or eight by my count.

 

Of those six, seven, or eight, how many pitchers did those managers select from their own teams? Do you think that is an objective measure? How many times did they pick a starting pitcher as the lone representative from that player's team? When your teammates are named Killebrew, Oliva, Carew, Stargell, and Parker, you're never going to be selected as the lone player from your club.

 

Was Blyleven ever passed over because he had pitched the weekend before the All-Star game? Moreover, don't you think managers were as "guilty" as the writers when making these selections by focusing on win-loss records as much or more than other stats that a pitcher has more control over? If so, can we agree that W-L records are not the best measure of a pitcher's performance?

 

For example, in 1972, Blyleven's ERA was 2.85 over, get this, 170.2 innings at the All-Star break. He wasn't selected because his W-L record was 9-12. He pitched like an All-Star but was penalized because his W-L record was under .500. Manager Earl Weaver went with Blyleven's teammate Jim Perry, who was 8-9 with a 3.21 ERA at the break, rather than with Bert. Think the fact that Perry was a 14-year veteran and Blyleven was in his second full season had anything to do with that injustice? How about Weaver choosing Marty Pattin (8-8, 3.75 ERA) over Blyleven?

 

In 1977, Blyleven had an ERA of 2.61 with outstanding peripherals at the All-Star break. Why do you suppose he wasn't named to the All-Star team? Do you think the fact that his W-L record was 8-9 had anything to do with it? Instead of selecting Blyleven as one of the seven starting pitchers, Billy Martin chose Bert Campaneris to represent the Texas Rangers. Campaneris was hitting .256/.317/.352 with 13 SB and 15 CS at the break.

 

In 1989, Blyleven was 8-2 with a 2.15 ERA in 125.2 IP, yet once again was passed over as one of the six pitchers Tony La Russa chose, two of whom were from his own A's team, including Dave Stewart, who "earned" the right to start the game due to his 13-4 record despite posting an ERA of 3.24 (more than a full run higher than Blyleven) while allowing more hits than innings and producing a K/BB ratio of less than 2.

 

Re the All-Star Game, here is what I wrote (along with breaking out his first and second half career stats) in Answering the Naysayers (Part Two) in December 2006:

 

As it relates to the number of All-Star Game appearances, Blyleven generally pitched better in the second half of the season than in the first half. Unfortunately, All-Star selections are based on how players perform during April, May, and June rather than July, August, and September.

 

W L PCT ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO

1st Half 150 140 .517 3.47 2738 2620 1167 1056 258 726 2046

2nd Half 137 110 .555 3.12 2232 2012 862 774 172 596 1655

 

Given that W-L records and ERAs are the stats most heavily considered by managers when it comes to picking All-Star starting pitchers, it follows that Blyleven would have been viewed more favorably had this honor taken place at the end of the season rather than in the middle.

 

If anything, Blyleven's splits should be viewed in a positive light. He did his best work in August and September (and in the postseason).

 

W L ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO

April/Mar. 30 36 3.61 680.2 661 301 273 69 199 487

May 50 41 3.40 858.1 800 360 324 72 220 689

June 49 46 3.37 803 773 337 301 78 212 596

July 48 44 3.70 873 831 390 359 88 240 613

August 59 36 2.89 863 770 313 277 62 222 645

Sept./Oct. 51 47 2.99 892 797 328 296 61 229 671

Postseason 5 1 2.47 47.1 43 15 13 5 8 36

 

Blyleven performed like an All-Star in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1989. For example, in his first full season in 1971, Bert led the league in strikeouts-to-walks (3.80), ranked third in Runs Saved Against Average (26), fourth in strikeouts (224) and adjusted ERA+ (127), fifth in ERA (2.81) and shutouts (5), eighth in complete games (17), and ninth in innings pitched (278 1/3), yet he wasn't an All-Star. Blyleven rightfully made the team in 1973 when he was arguably the best pitcher in the AL.

 

In 1974, Blyleven was 2nd in K (249), K/BB (3.23), and ERA+ (142); 4th in ERA (2.66), WHIP (1.14), and RSAA (32); and 10th in CG (19), yet failed to earn All-Star honors once again.

 

One year later, Bert ended up 2nd in K (233), 3rd in WHIP (1.10) and RSAA (34), 4th in K/BB (2.77), 5th in CG (20) and ERA+ (129), 6th in ERA (3.00), 7th in IP (275 2/3), and 9th in SHO (3) and, lo and behold, didn't make the All-Star team.

 

In 1976, Blyleven was 2nd in SHO (6), 3rd in K (219), 4th in IP (297 2/3), 5th in K/BB (2.70), 7th in RSAA (23), 8th in ERA+ (125), and 9th in ERA (2.87) and CG (18) but took another mini-vacation in July.

 

Bert may have been the best pitcher in the AL once again in 1977. He led the league in WHIP (1.07) and RSAA (39); was 2nd in ERA (2.72), ERA+ (151), and shutouts (5); 7th in K (182); 8th in K/BB (2.64); and 10th in CG (15), yet had nothing to show for it in terms of being an All-Star.

 

In the strike-shortened 1981 season, Blyleven ranked 3rd in K (107) and K/BB (2.67); 8th in WHIP (1.16) and ERA (2.88); 9th in ERA+ (126) and CG (9); and 10th in W (11). He watched the ASG from home.

 

In 1984, Bert led the league in RSAA (40); placed 2nd in W (19), WHIP (1.13), and ERA+ (142); 3rd in ERA (2.87) and SHO (4); 4th in K (170) and CG (12); and 8th in K/BB (2.30) despite playing for a team with a 75-87 record that ended up sixth in a seven-team division. He must have been an All-Star that year, right? Nope, he was left off the team again.

 

Blyleven made the All-Star team in 1985 for the second time in his career. However, he was ignored the following year when he led the league in IP (271 2/3) as well as in K/BB (3.71); placed 2nd in CG (16), 4th in K (215) and SHO (3), 6th in W (17), 7th in WHIP (1.18), and 10th in RSAA (19).

 

In 1989, the 38-year-old led the league in SHO (5); ranked 3rd in WHIP (1.12) and RSAA (28); 4th in ERA (2.73), ERA+ (140), and CG (8); 5th in K/BB (2.98); 6th in W (17); and 7th in IP (241), yet missed out on being an All-Star. Go figure.

As demonstrated, the fact that Blyleven was only named an All-Star twice is more a function of the system than a reflection on how well he pitched.

 

Importantly, the above breakdown also works just as well, if not even better, with respect to how Blyleven should have ranked in the CYA voting.

 

Speaking of which, I can't help but wonder if Blyleven's candidacy wouldn't be viewed more favorably today had the Baseball Writers Association of America implemented its new policy by expanding the Cy Young ballot from three to five spots 40 years ago?

 

Moreover, if the voters back then evaluated pitching performance more like today, perhaps Blyleven would have won the Cy Young Award in 1973? While Blyleven may not have quite put up a season equal to the likes of Zack Greinke or Tim Lincecum in 2009, it was a lot closer than what he was given credit for in the balloting that year. With more emphasis on K/BB, WHIP, FIP, and other measures besides wins and losses, Blyleven's dominance would be more notable today than how it has been perceived by many naysayers in the past.

 

There's plenty of room inside the Hall of Fame for Blyleven's plaque. The writers only have 2010, 2011, and 2012 to get it right as Bert drops off the ballot in three years. I anticipate further progress this year with an enshrinement date set for July 2011.

 

Wins and All-Star game appearances are ********. It's that simple.

[rhet]

Who's arguing for wins? That's your strawman.

[Dipre]

Who's arguing for wins? That's your strawman.

 

You keep pining for wins in one post, then discounting them in another. You've used win% several times in the current discussion. Straw what?

[a700hitter]

Who's arguing for wins? That's your strawman.

Then what are you arguing, because he wasn't just pretty good for a lot of seasons. He was outstanding for a lot of years.

[Emmz]

JD Drew will never make the HOF. Even though he will finish his career with a better OPS than many current members of the HOF' date=' he won't even sniff it. Care to guess why?[/quote']

 

Enlighten me as to how this applies to the argument at hand?

 

It's really simple, if Blyleven has a better W-L%, and had been on more all star teams, which he should have, then I'm doubtful you'd be saying what you're saying. Blyleven maintained some very good stats of 22 seasons, and is better than many pitchers who are already in before him.

[rhet]

Dipre stated many times that he played on "s*****" teams (apparently trying to imply he could have somehow been better if he didn't play on "s*****" teams). I simply showed, quite completely, that he played most of his career on non-"s*****" teams.

 

I have not argued that his win total should keep him out of the HOF. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Dipre]

Dipre stated many times that he played on "s*****" teams (apparently trying to imply he could have somehow been better if he didn't play on "s*****" teams). I simply showed, quite completely, that he played most of his career on non-"s*****" teams.

 

I have not argued that his win total should keep him out of the HOF. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

You mean when i said it in response to Crunchy's statement that he was a .500 pitcher, to which you responded that i was making an excuse for his "lousy record" therefore defending the importance of his W-L record?

[Emmz]

Then how shouldn't he be out of the hall of fame? He was durable, had a span of about 7 years of total dominance, and your argument has basically been that he "didn't make the all star team enough times" or some s*** like that, and the reason he didn't make the all star team was because of bias and lack of a W-L record. He did play on s***** teams. I consider any team that isn't a legitimate contender to be a s***** team, and you should look at some of the teams he played for. His ERA speaks for that fact. How you hold a 3.3 ERA over 22 years, and have a Win% that low proves that. No need to complicate that.

 

Your argument hold little water. Sorry to disappoint you.

[rhet]

I have only argued that Blyleven wasn't considered one of the great pitchers of his generation. There is plenty of evidence to support that, in spite of his accumulative stats. That is the only reason why I believe he shouldn't make the HOF.

[Emmz]

I have only argued that Blyleven wasn't considered one of the great pitchers of his generation. There is plenty of evidence to support that' date=' in spite of his accumulative stats. That is the only reason why I believe he shouldn't make the HOF.[/quote']

 

Yet you've shown us none of that. Blyleven IS considered one of the great pitchers of his generation, and his stats support that.

[rhet]

You mean when i said it in response to Crunchy's statement that he was a .500 pitcher' date=' to which you responded that i was making an excuse for his "lousy record" therefore defending the importance of his W-L record?[/quote']

 

Referencing it is not defending the importance of it. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Moreover, what I want to know is why you were defending it with your "s*****" team reference if it wasn't important to you?

[rhet]

Yet you've shown us none of that. Blyleven IS considered one of the great pitchers of his generation' date=' and his stats support that.[/quote']

 

No he isn't. If he was, he'd be in already.

[Emmz]

Referencing it is not defending the importance of it. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Moreover, what I want to know is why you were defending it with your "s*****" team reference if it wasn't important to you?

 

Because there are certain people who obviously think that his W-L record is important, like HOF voters, among others.

[Emmz]

No he isn't. If he was' date=' he'd be in already.[/quote']

 

Because they look at things the way you do: W-L, lack of all star teams, never won a Cy Young, stupid, nonsense s*** like that.

[Dipre]

I have only argued that Blyleven wasn't considered one of the great pitchers of his generation. There is plenty of evidence to support that' date=' in spite of his accumulative stats. That is the only reason why I believe he shouldn't make the HOF.[/quote']

 

Then let's look at it another way:

 

1970-1981: 2.95 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 159 CG, 2357 K's, 167-148 record,one AS game

 

That's a decade of dominance that matches up very well with that of a lot of HOF inductees, except for his W-L% and AS games, and it helps establish the fact that to accumulate good numbers, you need to be, well, good, for a long time.

 

He had a 3.87 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, and 1,344 K's the rest of the way, for a 108 ERA, meaning that even in his twilight he was a solidly above average pitcher.

 

He was absolutely dominant for more than a decade, and solidly above average the rest of the way. A lot of HOF pitchers can't make that claim.

[Dipre]

Referencing it is not defending the importance of it. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Moreover, what I want to know is why you were defending it with your "s*****" team reference if it wasn't important to you?

 

Au contraire, you wouldn't have referenced it if it wasn't important to you. Again, i was merely responding to Crunchy. W-L% should be inconsequential to a pitcher's HOF case, but the fact that you so fervently defend the point means you care for it, or you wouldn't have defended Crunchy's stance. That or you didn't read what he said in the first place, meaning you were just arguing for the sake of arguing, which would be worse IMO.

[Dipre]

Nobody disputes the fact that he accumulated a lot of stats over his 22 years. The question is what standard you set for the HOF. If it allows for a guy who only twice in 22 years was considered one of the seven best starters in his league' date=' then your standards are a lot lower than mine.[/quote']

 

 

 

Then let's look at it another way:

 

1970-1981: 2.95 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 159 CG, 2357 K's, 167-148 record,one AS game

 

That's a decade of dominance that matches up very well with that of a lot of HOF inductees, except for his W-L% and AS games, and it helps establish the fact that to accumulate good numbers, you need to be, well, good, for a long time.

He had a 3.87 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, and 1,344 K's the rest of the way, for a 108 ERA, meaning that even in his twilight he was a solidly above average pitcher.

 

He was absolutely dominant for more than a decade, and solidly above average the rest of the way. A lot of HOF pitchers can't make that claim.

[rhet]

He wasn't a dominant pitcher in his generation. Half his career he wasn't even the number 1 pitcher on his team.

[rhet]

Because they look at things the way you do: W-L' date=' lack of all star teams, never won a Cy Young, stupid, nonsense s*** like that.[/quote']

 

Hey, if you want to nominate him for Minnesotan of the year, feel free. The people who are responsible for who gets into the HOF don't think he was good enough.

[Dipre]

He wasn't a dominant pitcher in his generation. Half his career he wasn't even the number 1 pitcher on his team.

 

12 Opening day starts.

[bsox0407]

He wasn't a dominant pitcher in his generation. Half his career he wasn't even the number 1 pitcher on his team.

 

BTW you don't have to be a number one starter to be in the HOF.

[Dipre]

He wasn't a dominant pitcher in his generation. Half his career he wasn't even the number 1 pitcher on his team.

 

Stats say otherwise. Stats are not biased against a player.

[a700hitter]

He wasn't a dominant pitcher in his generation. Half his career he wasn't even the number 1 pitcher on his team.

You are wrong about that. Almost all of his career, he was the #1 guy on his team's staff, even when he was 38 years old on the Angels. There were a couple of years on the Rangers when Gaylord Perry was slotted ahead of him, but Blyleven had the better stats those years. There was 1 year on the Guardians when Neil Heaton was the #1, but Blyleven had the better year. Other than those few years and a few when he was injured, he was always his team's #1 guy. He was the #1 guy for the Twins by age 20. Much of his career Don Sutton was a #3, Drysdale was a #2 most of his career as was Gaylord Perry. Until Carlton left the Cards, he was a #2. None of them got to be a # 1 until their late 20's. Blyleven dominated hitters. His stats reflect the dominance.

[rhet]

You are wrong about that. Almost all of his career' date=' he was the #1 guy on his team's staff, even when he was 38 years old on the Angels. There were a couple of years on the Rangers when Gaylord Perry was slotted ahead of him, but Blyleven had the better stats those years. There was 1 year on the Guardians when Neil Heaton was the #1, but Blyleven had the better year. Other than those few years and a few when he was injured, he was always his team's #1 guy. He was the #1 guy for the Twins by age 20. Much of his career Don Sutton was a #3, Drysdale was a #2 most of his career as was Gaylord Perry. Until Carlton left the Cards, he was a #2. None of them got to be a # 1 until their late 20's. Blyleven dominated hitters. His stats reflect the dominance.[/quote']

 

Kaat and Perry were ahead of him in Mn. He wasn't #1 til his 4th year. At Texas, Gaylord Perry was ahead of him. He was #1 in Pitt until Bibby and Candaleria passed him his third year. He was #1 in Cleveland until he got hurt his second year there. Then Sutcliffe was ahead of him until he reclaimed #1 his last two years there. Back at Mn he started as the #1 until Frank Viola passed him his second year back. And in Cal, he was #1 his first year, then dropped to the 5th starter his last two years.

 

Of all the guys in front of him, only Gaylord Perry became a HOFer.

[a700hitter]

The guys you named (Jim Perry, Kaat,etc) were not better pitchers than Blyleven and he not them was the ace of those staffs. If the others got the opening day starts, it was because of deference to age or experience, not because they were the aces. I don't know what you are basing your assertion on about him not being the top pitcher on his team, but you are wrong. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You are making arguments about dominance when you never saw him pitch, and the stats clearly indicate that he was dominant.

[Dipre]

The guys you named (Jim Perry' date=' Kaat,etc) were not better pitchers than Blyleven and he not them was the ace of those staffs. If the others got the opening day starts, it was because of deference to age or experience, not because they were the aces. I don't know what you are basing your assertion on about him not being the top pitcher on his team, but you are wrong. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You are making arguments about dominance when you never saw him pitch, and the stats clearly indicate that he was dominant.[/quote']

 

 

1970-1981: 2.95 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 159 CG, 2357 K's, 167-148 record,132 ERA+

 

 

He had a 3.87 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, and 1,344 K's the rest of the way, for a 108 ERA+, meaning that even in his twilight he was a solidly above average pitcher.

 

 

You mean these stats?

 

Hmmmm......it would appear you are correct, my old-timey friend.

[Emmz]

Hey' date=' if you want to nominate him for Minnesotan of the year, feel free. The people who are responsible for who gets into the HOF don't think he was good enough.[/quote']

 

Okay, listen to reason. Everything you've said has been discredited as inaccurate, except for that he "didn't play in enough all star games".

 

If you want to try and condescend to me based on my geographic location, then that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that your argument holds about as much water as a paper bag.

[rhet]

I've stated why he's not in the HOF. I agree with the voters who have kept him out. I did see him pitch and believe it or not I've read several baseball books written about that era. So I'm pretty sure of the assertions I've made. Nevertheless, since often these debates are endless and turn into pissing contests, it's probably time to end it here and agree to disagree.

 

I apologize if I've insulted anyone here. It was not intentional. You three are three of my favorite posters on this site.

[Dipre]

I've stated why he's not in the HOF. I agree with the voters who have kept him out. I did see him pitch and believe it or not I've read several baseball books written about that era. So I'm pretty sure of the assertions I've made. Nevertheless, since often these debates are endless and turn into pissing contests, it's probably time to end it here and agree to disagree.

 

I apologize if I've insulted anyone here. It was not intentional. You three are three of my favorite posters on this site.

 

Well for the most part, it was basically interesting conversation given how slow the off-season currently is. She may have gotten a little offended because of the Minnesota thing, but all in all, nothing too big, just interesting debate.

[a700hitter]

I've stated why he's not in the HOF. I agree with the voters who have kept him out. I did see him pitch and believe it or not I've read several baseball books written about that era. So I'm pretty sure of the assertions I've made. Nevertheless, since often these debates are endless and turn into pissing contests, it's probably time to end it here and agree to disagree.

 

I apologize if I've insulted anyone here. It was not intentional. You three are three of my favorite posters on this site.

I think we have beaten this dead horse enough. There is one set of stats that i can't put my hands on. I was wondering where Blyleven ranks in all of the major pitching categories during the span of his career (1970 to 1992). That should tell us how dominant he was in his era.