Debating Blyleven's HOF Candidacy

[Grandstander]

Among the problems of HoF evaluation is that ultimately it becomes a black/white question: In or out? No middle ground, no second tier Hall of Famers, everyone enshrined is equal in terms of being honored. But the profiles of the candidates are not all equal before the voting, and while few would have trouble identifying Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver as Hall worthy, Blyleven really wasn't in their class. However, enshrining him makes it appear that he was. Black/white. In/out.

With no quality class distinctions, just in or out, we are left with some theoretical dividing line where those on one side are the immortals and those on the other are the also rans. This becomes a problem when when dealing with players with similar careers and accomplishments. Why is one an immortal and the other an also ran when there really isn't that much which distinguishes them from one another? Why is Tony Perez in but Dwight Evans out? Was the difference between Perez and Evans really that of all time great and just very good?

The voting rules used when getting the HoF started made sense at the time because there was a large field of highly qualified players dating back to the origins of the game. If they had utilized a system where each elligible player was considered only once...in or out and then either enshrined or forever inelligible, that would have been an injustice to all those decades of players whose careers came before the Hall was opened. (Or in the alternative, if everyone who deserved it had been voted into the first group of inductees, it would have really watered down the honor by making it appear not so exclusive.)

But...since that time those same rules are what has allowed lesser players to get elected or selected. Simply by longevity of elligibility, some players have been admitted by chronological attrition.

What should have been done was to have one set of rules covering players whose careers ended before the Hall was developed, and then a different form of voting for all who were to come after. It should have been a one time, in or out election. If the voters are unsure about someone, then that person fails and doesn't get in five years later simply because it happens to be an otherwise weak field of candidates that year.

Had they done it that way, the Hall would be filled by only no doubters and we wouldn't even be arguing about Blyleven or Dave Parker or Jim Rice because everyone would understand that the Hall is for the greats, not the very goods.

[nanwynnfan]

Carrying that line of reasoning out to a finite conclusion, let's say the HoF would be limited in admittance to a final total of 100 position players, EVER and 100 pitchers, EVER, where the only means of admittance beyond those levels would be the bumping of some prior inductee to make room for a new, better replacement.

Wonder what the HoF would look like in say 2020.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Carrying that line of reasoning out to a finite conclusion, let's say the HoF would be limited in admittance to a final total of 100 position players, EVER and 100 pitchers, EVER, where the only means of admittance beyond those levels would be the bumping of some prior inductee to make room for a new, better replacement.

Wonder what the HoF would look like in say 2020.

That's an interesting idea, making these athletes remain competitive even after they have died.

Now....would there also be a disenshrinement ceremony?
If the player being given the heave ho is still living, do we invite him and his family and friends to Cooperstown for the official ceremonial stripping of his uniform buttons and the burning of his plaque?

Your system would also mandate some official form of player ranking so that we may know who the bottom dweller is in order to displace the proper person when room for the new one is being made. We would also need to assign a ranking to the new inductee. If Soandso retires and gets elected to the Hall, and Bill Bulgebat who is the 100th ranked enshrined player has to be evicted to clear space, that would not mean that Soandso automatically takes over the bottom slot in the rankings, does it? We would have to place Soandos in the proper slot and everyone else gets bumped down one.

[nanwynnfan]

See. It requires some thought. It could be a "Former Hall of Famer Departure" celebration, with a brass bat for position players and a ball of wax for pitchers as they wax melancholy at their departure.

Or, how about a trickle-down HoF, like those delicately arranged champagne glasses, in tiers, where the fountain flows and the glasses are filled by displacement from higher tiers? It would truly be a liquid HoF, with players' names etched in gold, solber, copper, graphite depending on tier of greatness. This way nobody gets ousted, just moved to a lower tier, perhaps.

Free champagne for all visitors.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

The thread is about Bert Blyleven and the HoF; and I started my notes on pitchers and the HoF in general, although what resulted is a long post. Rather than start a new thread, and not wanting to hijack an existing thread, the short answer, for me, is YES, Burt Blyleven belongs in the HoF.

Nobody has analyzed the data I presented yet. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the evidence I'm providing? How do you account for Blyleven's pattern of underperforming, nonrelative to his own teams' offenses.

I also have other, just as compelling data against Blyleven's worthiness. I do find things wrong with these analyses which show favoring results for Blyleven. In general, the arguments for Blyleven look at his career overall, but not at his individual seasons, and I think this is one mistake.

Another mistake is to meld the great games of a pitcher with their mediocre games. Streaky pitchers will often look better in the rate stats. Their flat ERA seems impressive. They'll be great a lot (shutouts), but they'll also be substandard a lot. (see also Nolan Ryan) But a shutout is still worth only one win. I will later demonstrate that Blyleven's disparity between his better games and worse games is greater than the standard borderline Hall of Fame pitcher.

Also, Kevin Brown, Kevin Appier, Sid Fernandez... all efficient pitchers.

Blyleven's career is similar to Nolan Ryan's, but on a slightly lower scale, in that both weren't spectacular, but they maintained an above-average level for many years. Ryan certainly is a Hall of Famer, however his career stats and ERA overrate him, as they do Blyleven in the same fashion.

1. Opponent BA against pitcher as related to league BA vs. all pitchers, by season;

On the flipside, is Tony Gwynn the best outfielder of the last 50 years? Or even one of the five best? BA is only going to reveal so much.

Grandstander mentioned that Blyleven will likely be elected by the Veterans Committee, and I would have to agree. After all, Kaat already has his foot in the door there, so in another one or two elections, he'll be in.

2. OB/9IP, really WHIP, for each pitcher, weighed against league, by season;

WHIP is going to show efficiency, but not necessarily effectiveness. How many innings they pitch and how few runs they give up are the main indicators. And W-L brings it into context (over the course of a career, but not so much within a 1-2 year period).

nanwynnfan, I'll look more at your other analysis, but I need to take a break for the moment.

[nanwynnfan]

Triad:

I did read through your observations on Blyleven so that I understood your debating points against him; and I have no problems with your approach.

In debating his merits, I took my own tack, rather than spend time debating your points, one by one; and that was simply because I wanted to debate his merits, not our respective approaches in evaluating him.

At the bottom line, he is admittedly, for me, a close call.

I went back over his entire career and directly compared his W-L records to those of his teams, adjusting within partial seasins when he was traded.

His teams went 1,788 W and 1,666 L, a .518 clip.

He went 287-250, a .534 clip, better than teams, but not that impressive.

Then I went back to the old PRAA/IP, like an x-ray look at a pitcher and his runs saved above average, per IP and per 9 inning game. I've lost my notes; but turning that into projected wins on the basis or Pitching Runs Saved Above Average, I got a projected win % of .570.

To me, that suggests, on his pitching merits alone, Blyleven "should have" won .570 of his decisions, or 537 decisions * .570 = 306 wins and 231 losses.

If a team wins .534 of its games over 162 games [Blyleven's actual W-L Pct.] it has a record of 87-75 as is a possible contender. At .570, a team's record over 162 games is 92-70, pretty certain to be in the post-season.

Bottom line, for me, is that he's so close to that magical "300 Club" and lost the better part of 4 seasons to elbow, foot and other arm ailments, always coming back as a workhorse, he's right on the cusp and his other dynamics - already presented - earn him the benefit of the doubt.

He also gets + points for helping each new team he was traded to and for an > average post-season record.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I did read through your observations on Blyleven so that I understood your debating points against him; and I have no problems with your approach.

Then if we can't account for the actual data discrepancies between lack of wins and impressive ERA, we have to conclude that the W-L were more representative of his basic value, and not so much the ERA.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I went back over his entire career and directly compared his W-L records to those of his teams, adjusting within partial seasins when he was traded.

His teams went 1,788 W and 1,666 L, a .518 clip.

He went 287-250, a .534 clip, better than teams, but not that impressive.

This would merely be a measure of how much better or worse he was than the rest of the pitchers on his teams, which wouldn't tell us a whole lot objectively. There's a big difference between a team's W-L record and its offensive output. For example, the '72 Phillies were a horrible team, and Carlton's 27-10 record was impressive in that light. However, they were not a horrible batting team, but a horrible pitching team. It's just that none of the other pitchers on the team were worth their salt. By contrast, Carlton looked like Sandy Koufax. He still got decent support from the Phillie offense.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Then I went back to the old PRAA/IP, like an x-ray look at a pitcher and his runs saved above average, per IP and per 9 inning game. I've lost my notes; but turning that into projected wins on the basis or Pitching Runs Saved Above Average, I got a projected win % of .570.

I'm unfamiliar with PRAA. What is the basic formula for it?

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Bottom line, for me, is that he's so close to that magical "300 Club" and lost the better part of 4 seasons to elbow, foot and other arm ailments, always coming back as a workhorse, he's right on the cusp and his other dynamics - already presented - earn him the benefit of the doubt.

There are dozens of pitchers with 15+ year careers who had more significant injury problems than Blyleven. If we give him some leeway for his, then we have to go back and adjust everyone else's, and that still puts him behind the ones he's behind.

I'm curious which seasons you're referring to when you say he lost the better part of 4 seasons to those ailments. In 1982, he missed most of the season. In 1983, he had 24 starts. All the other seasons, he had at least 30 starts (besides his opening and trailing seasons for his career). 1981 was a strike-shortened season. I don't see where injury slowed him down any more than any other pitcher.

What's interesting is that if Blyleven had won six more games that he lost, he probably would have been voted in already. His record would've been 293-244, and if those wins had resulted in 20-14 seasons in '72 and '74 instead of 17-17 seasons, then he'd be getting lots of support. We'd be talking about a three-time 20-game winner instead of a one-time 20-game winner.

So, in essence, Blyleven is that close to being a Hall of Famer in terms of how he would be accepted.

Isn't it a little troubling to Blyleven supporters that, in a 4-man rotation era and a time when pitchers got to regularly go into the 8th and 9th innings (giving them more decisions), Blyleven only managed 20 wins one time?

The data you're presenting has two difficulties. a) It blankets his entire career, rather than examining each season one-by-one, and b) much of it is hypothetical, based on expectations, all else being equal. That's a huge assumption to be making — all else being equal. Playing careers don't occur in a vacuum. I would suspect that the X factors which are not appearing on the radar include things along these lines:
• Blyleven's possibly higher disparity between good games and bad games, meaning inconsistency.
• Perhaps he was a poor fielder, contributing to his own woes.
• High unearned run totals in many of his "best" seasons:
1973 - 91 ER, 18 UER (was 20-17 despite a 158 ERA+)
1974 - 83 ER, 16 UER (was 17-17 despite a 142 ERA+)
1985 - 103 ER, 18 UER (was 17-16 despite a 135 ERA+)
1977 - 71 ER, 10 UER (was 14-12 despite a 151 ERA+)

R/ER is typically around an 11% increase, but Blyleven experienced in his seemingly "best" seasons inflated amounts of UER (19%, 19%, 17%, 14%).

Someone might think because of this that Blyleven might have had poor fielders behind him. However, if that were so, then we would see a similar pattern with other pitchers on the same pitching staffs...

PART II

A direct comparison with his fellow staff members (those with a minimum of 20 GS):

1970 Twins
Blyleven 10-9, 3.18
Perry 24-12, 3.02
Kaat 14-10, 3.56

Kaat has worse ERA but better W-L margin. Perry has similar ERA but much better W-L.
Conclusion: Blyleven underperformed his W-L compared to other Twins' starters.

1971 Twins
Blyleven 16-15, 2.81
Kaat 13-14, 3.32
Perry 17-17, 4.23

Kaat has similar results to Blyleven relative to ERA. Perry has much worse ERA but roughly same W-L.
Conclusion: Blyleven underperformed his W-L compared to one Twins' starter, and was the same as another.

1972 Twins
Blyleven 17-17, 2.73
Woodson 14-14, 2.72
Perry 13-16, 3.35

Woodson similar to Blyleven. Perry has similar record relative to ERA.
Conclusion: Blyleven was the same as the other Twins' starters.

1973 Twins
Blyleven 20-17, 2.52
Kaat 11-12, 4.41
Decker 10-10, 4.17
Woodson 10-8, 3.95

Kaat, Decker, and Woodson have much worse ERAs, but W-L is not far from Blyleven's.
Conclusion: Blyleven underperformed his W-L compared to other Twins' starters.

1974 Twins
Blyleven 17-17, 2.66
Decker 16-14, 3.29
Goltz 10-10, 3.25
Albury 8-9, 4.12

Decker has worse ERA but better record. Goltz and Albury had worse ERA but similar record.
Conclusion: Blyleven underperformed his W-L compared to other Twins' starters.

1975 Twins
Blyleven 15-10, 3.00
Hughes 16-14, 3.82
Goltz 14-14, 3.67

Hughes and Goltz and records relative to their ERAs.
Conclusion: Blyleven was the same as the other Twins' starters.

Questions: Could Blyleven have been simply "unluckier" than all other Twins' starters in three of the six years, unluckier than half in one of the other years, and had the same luck the other two years? Why wasn't he ever "luckier" than any of the rest of the Twins' pitchers?

Are you seeing a real pattern here?

Let's continue his career. In 1976, he played partly with the Twins, and then with the Rangers. Through 12 starts with Minnesota that year, his 3.12 would have led the team, and yet his 4-5 was worse than three others who were at .500 with higher ERAs. Then his Texas numbers...

1976 Rangers
Blyleven 9-11, 2.76
Perry 15-14, 3.24
Briles 11-9, 3.26
Umbarger 10-12, 3.15

Conclusion: Blyleven slightly underperformed his W-L compared to Perry and Briles.

1977 Rangers
Blyleven 14-12, 2.72
Alexander 17-11, 3.65
Perry 15-12, 3.37
Ellis 10-6, 2.90

Conclusion: Blyleven underperformed his W-L compared to Alexander and Perry.

1978 Pirates
Blyleven 14-10, 3.03
Robinson 14-6, 3.47
Candelaria 12-11, 3.24
Rooker 9-11, 4.24

Conclusion: Blyleven underperformed his W-L compared to Robinson.

Blyleven was almost always the team leader in ERA, or right near being the team leader. And yet in only one year (1975, 15-10) did he post a W-L record that was clearly above the rest of the staff.

Blyleven's first nine seasons supposedly represents most of his best ERA+ seasons: 158, 151, 142, 129, 127, 125, 123, 118, 117.

Aggregate totals for Blyleven's first 9 seasons (discounting his short stint with Minnesota in '76):

Blyleven
W-L, Pct.: 132-118, .528
ERA: 2.82

All other staff with 20 or more GS
W-L, Pct.: 303-266, .532
ERA: 3.54

So in his first nine seasons, Blyleven had a WORSE winning percentage than the other pitchers on his staffs (min. 20 GS), even though his ERA was 0.72 better. Why would this be? What can we attribute it to?

Can you think of any worthy Hall of Fame pitchers whose ERA was worse than the rest of their regular starting rotation for the first half of their career while in their prime?

(Note: I've counted each season ERA total in the same light, regardless of number of IP. The actual ERA is likely quite similar.)

Footnote: Not until his tenth season, with the "We Are Family" Pirates did Blyleven overperform. He went 12-5 despite having only the third-best ERA on the team. But even in that year, Blyleven had only 17 decisions and 20 no-decisions. Let's look at how lucky he was to not get losses in many of those no-decisions... 5 IP, 4 ER; 3 IP, 4 ER; 6 IP, 4 ER; 2 IP, 5 ER; 3 IP, 5 ER; 4 IP, 5 ER; 6 IP, 5 ER; 6 IP, 4 ER; 5 IP, 5 ER. The Pirates essentially bailed him out of about 6 or 7 losses. He had 12 games giving up 1 or fewer earned runs, and 12 games giving up 4 or more earned runs. (the league ERA was under 4.00 then)

So, what happened those first nine years of Blyleven's prime? The other pitchers on his staffs were playing with the same team he was. The same fielders and the same batters (merely interchanging Blyleven in the pitcher's spot). How were the other guys almost always able to post better W-L records despite having higher ERAs than Blyleven? Is he just the unluckiest pitcher who ever lived? Did his teams bat and field worse when he was pitching, and then did better when the other pitchers on the staff were pitching? Notice we've inserted this control group by comparing him only with fellow pitching staff members, so that removes any bias of playing for a poor-hitting team. Any explanations?

My theory is that consistency and inconsistency are often borne out in W-L records, particularly over the course of 3 or 4 seasons, not to mention over the course of half a career. ERA doesn't measure consistency, but rather gives a flat average. If a pitcher has several shutouts and 1-run games, but then also has many games where he blows it, ERA evens those out and still makes him look good. But a shutout is worth only 1 win, just like a 2-run win is worth only one win. A shutout increases a team's chances of winning by a few percentage points, but not to the extent that the ERA difference would suggest.

Also, I don't think anyone has answered any of these questions yet that I asked in the first post. If anyone thinks Blyleven belongs in the Hall, they should be able to answer these questions...
• Was there ever a three-year period in Blyleven’s career where he was one of the five best pitchers in baseball for that period? If so, when? If not, don’t you think that’s a reasonable standard to start with?
• Do you feel 287 wins is enough to qualify a pitcher for the Hall of Fame, providing he has a winning record?
• What do you consider to be Blyleven’s two best seasons?
• 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?

[nanwynnfan]

"Blyleven was almost always the team leader in ERA, or right near being the team leader. And yet in only one year (1975, 15-10) did he post a W-L record that was clearly above the rest of the staff."

Triad, I did read your entire post and commend you on your detail and organization of arguments. However, Part I is more convincing than Part II; and the above quoted passage, for me, says it all.

You seems to blame Blyleven for having low W-L records compared to his ERA. T me, anf for a guy typically going deep in his starts, that argues, not against Blyleven but his teammates:

a. not hitting behind him as well as they did for others on the staff;

b. not fielding as well behind him as for others;

c. a combination of a. and b. above.

I will not respond point by point. It does appear that keeping Blyleven out is more important to you than getting him in is to me.

My arguments are reflect a POV; and your reflect a different POV.

NOTE: I DO stand corrected on those seasons lost; and it should have been 2, not 4. One [my third] was the strike year and you are entirely correct. I had forgotten that. The foot injury season, he lost a month ending up at 19 wins, which would have given him a second 20 win year in all probability.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

You seem to blame Blyleven for having low W-L records compared to his ERA. To me, and for a guy typically going deep in his starts, that argues, not against Blyleven but his teammates:

a. not hitting behind him as well as they did for others on the staff;
b. not fielding as well behind him as for others;
c. a combination of a. and b. above.

I'm not clear on how that could continue to happen over most of a 9-year period while he was in his prime? What you're suggesting is an actual pattern for his teams not hitting or fielding as well behind him, with a cause. It couldn't occur by random chance over the course of a few hundred starts. If you feel a. or b. is the case, then what would contribute to that? Why would batters or fielders consistently perform worse for one pitcher over several years? The only explanations I can think of are ones that are the fault of the pitcher himself.

And if this is true, are there many other pitchers in history that this has happened to?

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I will not respond point by point. It does appear that keeping Blyleven out is more important to you than getting him in is to me.

He-he... I don't mind so much if he gets in, and I think it's inevitable with the Veterans Committee, but when I see other players being overlooked by fans in favor of him, it takes the whole baseball universe out of equilibrium.

Some have indicated that Blyleven might not have gotten much support from his bullpens. I've only examined one year, his highest ERA+ plus season of 1973...

Blyleven had 25 complete games. Breaking down his other 15 starts:

Wins (2)

Blyleven__Bullpen
IP - R____IP - R
6.2 - 4 __ 2.1 - 0
(bullpen got out of 2-out jam with runners on first and second after Blyleven left the game ahead 6-4)

10 - 2 __ 1 - 0
(bullpen got out of 0-out jam with runners on first and third, allowing one run to score, after Blyleven left the game ahead 5-1)

Losses (10)

Blyleven__Bullpen
IP - R____IP - R
7 - 4 __ 1 - 0 (no inherited runners)
6 - 6 __ 2 - 0 (no inherited runners)
4.1 - 4 __ 4.2 - 1 (bullpen was effective, and Blyleven left the game already losing 3-1 with 1 out and runners on first and third)
4.1 - 6 __ 3.2 - 0 (no inherited runners)
6.1 -4 __ 2.2 - 2 (bullpen faltered, but Blyleven was already losing 3-2 with 1 out and a runner on third when he left the game)
5.2 - 5 __ 2.1 - 0 (bullpen allowed 1 inherited runner to score with 2 out after Blyleven left the game already losing 4-0)
7 - 6 __ 1 - 0 (bullpen allowed 2 inherited runners to score with 0 outs after Blyleven left the game already losing 4-2)
6.2 - 4 __ 2.1 - 5 (bullpen faltered, but Blyleven was already losing 3-2 with 2 outs and a runner on third when he left the game)
7.2 - 3 __ 1.1 - 0 (inherited runner did not score)
6.1 - 7 __ 2.2 - 3 (bullpen faltered, but Blyleven was already losing 4-2 with 1 out and runners on first and second when he left the game)

No-decisions (3)

Blyleven__Bullpen
IP - R____IP - R
9 - 2 __ 1 - 0 (no inherited runners)
8 - 6 __ 0 - 1 (bullpen faltered, with Blyleven leaving the game at the end of the 8th with the score tied)
8.2 - 6 __ 1.1 - 0 (inherited runner did not score -- bullpen got out of 2-out jam with a runner on second base after Blyleven left the game with the scored tied)

2 W (bullpen IP 3.1, 0 R)
10 L (bullpen IP 23.2, 11 R)
3 ND (bullpen IP 2.1, 1 R)
Total bullpen RA/9IP = 3.69

The Twins' bullpen as a whole did not blow any save opportunities following Blyleven's exits that year.
They did not lose any leads after Blyleven left the game.
They let only one inherited runner score in games where Blyleven left with the lead or tied -- and that was a runner on third with no outs.

It seems Blyleven was extremely fortunate with the bullpen support he got.

[nanwynnfan]

OK. I don't have Retrosheet, nor do I have the time or inclination to review Blyleven's entire career; but I can say this, for certain, given the sample scenario below:

Pitcher A ......GS = 34......IP 247.67.......ERA 2.95........W 17 L 14

Pitcher B.......GS = 34......IP 221.33.......ERA 3.75........W 15 L 7

Pitcher C.......GS = 34......IP 235.00.......ERA 4.10........W 16 L 10

Pitcher D.......GS = 34......IP 179.67.......ERA 4.40........W 11 L 7

Pitcher A lacks a degree of support, probably from his offense, since his ERA is such that, with average MLB defense behind him he surrenders @ 3.04 total runs per game.

Pitcher B wins at a better % that pitcher A while allowing almost a run a game more. I'm guessing here that once he gets beyong the 5th or 6th inning, either his pen is outstanding, particualrly set up men; or his offense makes him look good.

Pitcher C reflects the true road map for the team at large, probably scoring 755 runs in 730 average league and doing their best average hitting when he's on the mound.

Pitcher D is a Roger Moret type, some outing superb, some not so hot, but never much beyond 6 innings. He too gets good offensive support.

If we take a look at that 730 runs/162G league, that's 4.51 runs/game. What is win expectancy for pitchers A thru D? Let's add 3.5% to ERA; spread all team W-L based on these 4 pitchers only; and prorate their IP as % of team total, 1440 IP and calculate it:

Pitcher A = 2.95 + 3.5% = 3.05; = .686 * 31 decisions = 21 - 10

Pitcher B = 3.75 + 3.5% = 3.88; = .575 * 22 decisions = 13 - 9

Pitcher C = 4.10 + 3.5% = 4.24; = .531 * 26 decisions = 14 - 12

Pitcher D = 4.40 + 3.5% = 4.55; = .496 * 18 decision = 9 - 9

In reality we have a rotation at 59-38. Internal pitching dynamics would have projected 57-40, expecting less of pitchers B, C, and D ... much more from pitcher A.

I see Blyleven as pitcher A for much of his career, at 306-231. Instead, he got dealt 287-250. Flip the coin.

P.S. Earlier in the thread, bedir suggested a 4.42 run/game level; and the examples above would be virtually the same with that scenario, Pitcher A @ 21-10, etc.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I see Blyleven as pitcher A for much of his career, at 306-231. Instead, he got dealt 287-250. Flip the coin.

So then if we apply it to the first nine years of Blyleven's career and see this happening to him nearly every year, yet not happening to the other starting pitchers on his teams, what can we derive from this?

You're suggesting that Blyleven was just randomly unlucky for his first 300 starts. How could that be? Surely we must attribute this pattern to something. The only common denominator was Blyleven. The personnel of his teams changed over the course of a few years.

[nanwynnfan]

Taking just the first 9 seasons of Blyleven's career, I just selected some neat, clear and brief stats that tell a good deal about pitchers relative to their pitching staff teammates, the league they play in and their relative efeectiveness in staying out of trouble.

In case someone reads this who is a newer fan, here are the stats used:

WHIP: simply walks + hits allowed reduced to IP, good indicator of pitcher control and hit-ability. You rarely find pitchers < 1.000; and the League column [average] will give evidence to that/

ERA + pitcher's ERA measured vs. League average > 100 good; <100 bad;

Blyleven Season.........WHIP.............LG.......Bert ERA +........Team ERA+

1970........................1.159..........1.331.. ......117..................115

1971........................1.171..........1.298.. ......127...................94

1972........................1.100..........1.231.. ......118..................113

1973........................1.117..........1.371.. ......158..................105

1974........................1.142..........1.330.. ......142..................104

1975........................1.099..........1.363.. ......129....................95

1976........................1.223..........1.314.. ......115...................97
[two teams]...............................................130 ..................104

1977........................1.065..........1.377.. ......151...................115

1978.........................1.161.........1.318.. ......123...................109

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Blyleven Season.........WHIP.............LG.......Bert ERA +........Team ERA+

1970........................1.159..........1.331.. ......117..................115

1971........................1.171..........1.298.. ......127...................94

1972........................1.100..........1.231.. ......118..................113

1973........................1.117..........1.371.. ......158..................105

1974........................1.142..........1.330.. ......142..................104

1975........................1.099..........1.363.. ......129....................95

1976........................1.223..........1.314.. ......115...................97
[two teams]...............................................130 ..................104

1977........................1.065..........1.377.. ......151...................115

1978.........................1.161.........1.318.. ......123...................109

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

What they say to me is that this is a pitcher who was very efficient overall, but it masks his inconsistency from game to game and the fact that the other starting pitchers* on his teams had a better winning percentage than he did in those 9 combined years. You're still not accounting for that.
(*-those with at least 20 GS in a given year)

A very good pitcher would have been able to turn those ERA+ numbers into more wins than Blyleven did.

If Blyleven is really as good as his WHIP and ERA+ alone suggest, and if his W-L are an anomaly, then what three or four-year periods in Blyleven's career was he one of the five best pitchers in baseball?

Bret Saberhagen can claim 1985-89. Mike Mussina can claim 1992-95. Frank Viola can claim 1987-90. Fernando Valenzuela can claim 1981-85. Kevin Brown can claim 1996-99. Jack Morris can claim 1983-86. This is what dominance is about, not merely a long, sustained career. (For the same reason, I don't consider Phil Niekro a legitimate Hall of Famer) And look at Blyleven's contemporaries who can claim the same: Jim Palmer 1971-78. Catfish Hunter 1972-75. Tom Seaver 1969-77. Steve Carlton 1971-82. Ferguson Jenkins 1969-71.

So, going back to Blyleven's own pitching staffs, are there any legitimate Hall of Fame pitchers who also had a worse W-L pct. than all the other combined regular starting pitchers on his teams for such a sustained period during his prime? Clearly, this is a pattern that points back to Blyleven himself as being the only possible cause. You had mentioned that he could have had worse offensive support and fielding support than the other members of his staffs. But if that's so, how could that continue to be the case year after year? After awhile, you have to stop believing in good luck or bad luck and attribute the pattern to something substantive.

We know that Blyleven did have a great curve ball and could dominate with it. But what kind of pitcher was he when his curve ball wasn't breaking like it should? The data so far strongly suggests that he had a wider gap between his good games and his bad games than the standard HOF pitcher. ERA or WHIP wouldn't bear this out, but instead would tend to even them out over the course of a season and overlook this factor. I'll have to look closer at Blyleven's actual gap compared to other pitchers, because this could be most telling.

In any event, distribution of runs allowed is nearly as important as number of runs allowed. This is true for pitching because a starting pitcher largely controls the outcome of a given game, whereas each batter does not have that type of control. A batter can't typically be held largely responsible for whether his team won or lost, but a starting pitcher can. Therefore, for pitchers, context matters. For a batter, it doesn't matter as much when they get their best hits, but whether a pitcher bunches his runs allowed or spreads them out can make quite a difference in how many games he legitimately wins.

Here's a hypothetical to describe the basic process:

..........Pitcher A ... Pitcher B
ERA ...... 3.00 ......... 3.50

Earned runs each game (assuming 9 IP/G for clarity's sake)
............... 1 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 1 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 2 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 3 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 4 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 4 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4
............... 0 .......... 3
............... 5 .......... 4

Let's say the league ERA is 3.50, so 3 earned runs in a game gives your team a better than average chance to win, while 4 earned runs doesn't, and then varying degrees towards the extremes on both ends. Pitcher A had 15 games where he gave up 5 or more earned runs, while Pitcher B had none. Pitcher A had 9 games with no earned runs, which were almost guaranteed wins, while Pitcher B had none. Pitcher A had four other games where he gave his team a decent chance to win (1, 2, 3 earned runs), and two games at 4 earned runs which did not give his team a good chance to win. With these distributions, Pitcher A would normally go about 14-16 and Pitcher B would go about 15-15. People would look at this and say Pitcher A must have had tough luck, with a losing record and a good ERA.

The wider distribution for pitcher A makes him less valuable in comparison than his ERA would suggest. On the other hand, the consistency of pitcher B makes him more valuable than his ERA would suggest. For this same reason, Nolan Ryan isn't quite as valuable as his season ERAs would usually suggest. Like Blyleven, Ryan could dominate a game, but Ryan was also prone to being erratic. The great games stand out, but the poor games are kind of forgotten.

[nanwynnfan]

I've rested my case.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I've rested my case.

OK, fair enough. But remember you also didn't answer any of the questions I challenged Blyleven supporters with in the beginning:

• Was there ever a