[Triad]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

I think he definitely has a case from about 71-78. I don't know if there's a three year period where he could conclusively be considered top 5, but he's certainly in the mix. I don't necessarily agree that there should be a hard rule in ranking, particularly over a short period. He needs to be one of the best of his time, to be sure, but it also needs to be considered who his peak overlaps with. Whether he's ranked fourth over his best years or sixth is less important than how good he actually was over those years.

That sounds reasonable. I was just suggesting a 3-year period as a minimum. A 2-year period wouldn't tell us as much. Ron Guidry, Dwight Gooden, and the like would creep through.

Let's check your period of 71-78. And we can extend this to the top six pitchers of that time. It has to start with Seaver, Carlton and Palmer. Blyleven was nowhere in their class in those years, so that cancels out three spots right there. Blyleven's main competition for the last three spots would seem to come from Catfish Hunter, Gaylord Perry, Ferguson Jenkins, Vida Blue, Luis Tiant, Nolan Ryan and Don Sutton.

During that time, Blyleven had 7 seasons of 120 ERA+ or more, three of those at 140 or more. His record in his "prime" was 126-114 (.525).

Here's a good place to start. In that period, here are the Cy Young finishes of each.

Perry - 1st, 1st, 4th, 7th
Jenkins - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th
Blue - 1st, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th
Sutton - 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 5th
Hunter - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th
Tiant - 4th, 5th, 6th
Ryan - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 8th
Blyleven - 7th (gulp!)

Do you really think the Cy Young voters got it that wrong? Is he the only pitcher in history that got shafted like this during his prime? If it's just a matter of overvaluing wins/losses, then we would find a real pattern throughout history of not giving certain pitchers enough credit. Where do we find this?

Are you trying to tell me that a pitcher that only got Cy Young votes in one of eight years in his prime, and finished 7th that year, would be one of the six best pitchers of that period? It seems inconceiveable. About the best one could stretch this would be to say that Blyleven was the 8th or 9th best pitcher during that time. Not all that impressive.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

• Do you feel 287 wins is enough to qualify a pitcher for the Hall of Fame, providing he has a winning record?
Absolutely. It's not quite the magic number 300, but historically between 250 and 300, it's closer to the rule than the exception. His individual merits need to be evaluated too, obviously, but the win total is very much in line with deserving HoFers.

This would mean you would also elect Tommy John and Jim Kaat, correct? Where's the cutoff? 270?

Originally Posted by WilsonC

• What do you consider to be Blyleven’s two best seasons?
1973, and then probably 1974. One thing about Blyleven's peak is the remarkable season-to-season consistency. Kind of like Oswalt in that regard - he was consistently among the top, but with no real anomally seasons that standout as appreciably better or worse than his true level of ability. When looking at, say, his best five to nine years as a peak value, it's more favorable to him than looking at his absolute best seasons.

This seems a very unusual pattern for a Hall of Fame pitcher. Can you think of any other worthy Hall of Famers who fit this pattern at the same level? I can't think of any. Phil Niekro might be close, but then I don't think he's a worthy Hall of Famer either. What is reasonably concluded from this is that Blyleven was a very good pitcher for a long time, but was never a great pitcher. Is the Hall of Fame a place for very good pitchers?

In 1973 and 1974, what place would you have voted Blyleven in the Cy Young? I can't see him deserving higher than 5th either time. That doesn't say much for your career when that's your best.

1973 - what you and others would call his best season...

Blyleven was 20-17, with 3 no-decisions. The Twins actually bailed him out in two of those three ND, where he gave up six runs in both of them.

Run support. The Twins scored 165 runs in his 40 games (average of 4.13 per game). He allowed 109 runs, and the bullpen allowed another 12, for a total of 121 runs allowed.

165 runs scored, 121 runs allowed. He was given an average of a 1-run cushion in each game. How does this translate to poor run support?

They scored at least 4 runs 18 times, and 3 runs 6 times.

Blyleven's ERA in 1973:
0.96 in wins
4.48 in losses

I need to revise what I said earlier about the gap between Blyleven's inconsistency. When he was good, he did very well, and when he was bad, he was just bad enough to lose. This made his ERA look good, but he still deserved to lose the games he did, for the most part. In contrast, Catfish Hunter (3.34) and Vida Blue's (3.28) ERAs that year looked worse, but that's mainly because when they lost, they tanked. In reality, one terrible loss should not reflect badly on three or four other wins.

Blue:
1.79 in wins
6.84 in losses

Hunter:
2.53 in wins
9.13 in losses

Even Jim Palmer (2.40) did worse in wins than Blyleven, but he had more of them, and he did worse in his losses, but a loss is only one loss.
1.31 in wins
5.11 in losses

What you're doing is overvaluing Blyleven's ERA due to his many games where he allowed 0 ER and having a "decent" ERA in his losses. A 4.48 ERA in his losses is still not good enough to win, though it keeps his team close. There's no bonus credit for giving up 6 runs instead of 9 runs. Either way, you lost. ERA incorrectly blends those bad losses in with the other good games, and makes Blue's and Hunter's ERAs look worse than they really were.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

• Do you think Blyleven’s lackluster Cy Young voting (3rd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th) means that the voters somehow didn’t appreciate him, and if so, why didn’t they?

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Wins/Losses is the obvious answer. Really, that's the one question mark on his track record of his entire career. If he was 300-237, would we be having this discussion? Of course not. The only question is whether or not there was something about his performance that made him less likely to win than his peripherals showed, or whether he simply got unlucky in a handful of decisions throughout his career.

Yet in 22 seasons, he NEVER had that stellar season. Not once. He was never spectacular for a full season. This should make us very suspicious.

The damning evidence against Blyleven is that during this time, his teams scored 2% above the league average, and the other pitchers on his teams' staffs (min. 20 GS in a season) had a cumulative winning percentage that was BETTER than Blyleven's! How could he be the only unlucky pitcher on his staffs over the course of his first ten seasons? It's unthinkable.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

It's about a dozen decisions between where he is now, and being a virtually unanymous no-brainer. It doesn't really seem too improbable that someone could lose a dozen more games than expected based on his performance over the course of his career.

I could understand that, but the law of averages says that a great pitcher would not have 10 consecutive seasons during his prime of being unlucky. That's statistically impossible within the realm of all the pitchers who have ever pitched in the last 130 years.

You seem to be saying that Blyleven's redeeming value is that he is close to being great.