Debating Blyleven's HOF Candidacy

[nanwynnfan]

Triad wrote:

"nanwynnfan, you seem to be going by the criteria that a 300-win pitcher is automatically good enough for the Hall of Fame. Do you also think Phil Niekro (318) and Don Sutton (324) are legitimate Hall of Famers?

"If Niekro is a legitimate HOFer, then I'd agree Blyleven is also. However, there's no objective standard which says if you have 300 wins, then you belong in the Hall of Fame. A just as reasonable argument can be made that neither Blyleven, Niekro nor Sutton belong in the Hall of Fame. Sutton played 23 years, Niekro played 24, and Blyleven played 22. If they'd condensed their same career totals into 19 or 20 seasons, it would have been more valuable."

1. It's not a bad criterion, 300 wins. It's the equivalent of winning 20 games for 15 seasons, a fairly awesome concept, especially given our pampered pitcher atmosphere, augmented by hi-tech surgeries that strengthen tendons and ligaments beyond their natural endowments.

I guess in a universe of 6 inning starters, 300 wins is now the equivalent of 20 seasons at 15 wins, still mighty impressive.

2. Yes, I emphatically believe that Niekro and Sutton belong in the Hall of Fame, EVEN IF for no other reason than those 300 wins.

I read your entire post; but what I quoted and my response to this point are all I see as relevant.

The rest of your POV statement is a series of "what-ifs" that did not happen and hypotheticals that depict a virtual world, not the real one.

As for this [quoted]:

"Why are you using career totals as a standard? Why credit someone for merely having a long career? Playing lots of seasons means you were at or above replacement level and didn't sustain a career-ending injury. This should not be the bar for Hall of Fame entry."

The career IS the legacy. If Charlie Hossenpfeffer has 11 20+ win seasons over 14 seasons, in which his W-L record = 294 - 210; and he then enters a five year span where he hangs on, BADLY, at 11-40 with a 6.25 ERA, do you expect I would dismiss him from HoF consideration? Of course not.

You have tried to put words in my mouth. I never said the CAREER is the measure. I did say the CAREER is the total legacy. The overall ACCOMPLISHMENT LEVEL is key for me. Blyleven has it despite not quite making 300 wins. As I pointed out, he's a 13 decision shift away over 20+ years, close enough for me, given his other accomplishments.

Any 300 game winner automatically has it.

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by Triad

nanwynnfan, you seem to be going by the criteria that a 300-win pitcher is automatically good enough for the Hall of Fame. Do you also think Phil Niekro (318) and Don Sutton (324) are legitimate Hall of Famers?

If Niekro is a legitimate HOFer, then I'd agree Blyleven is also. However, there's no objective standard which says if you have 300 wins, then you belong in the Hall of Fame. A just as reasonable argument can be made that neither Blyleven, Niekro nor Sutton belong in the Hall of Fame. Sutton played 23 years, Niekro played 24, and Blyleven played 22. If they'd condensed their same career totals into 19 or 20 seasons, it would have been more valuable.

I've nothing against 300 wins being a near automatic inclusion. I consider Sutton and Niekro to be deserving, and off the top of my head, can't really think of any 300 game winners who aren't. A player certainly shouldn't be penalized for a long career.

Originally Posted by Triad

Why are you using career totals as a standard? Why credit someone for merely having a long career? Playing lots of seasons means you were at or above replacement level and didn't sustain a career-ending injury. This should not be the bar for Hall of Fame entry.

No, but it paints a part of the picture. For pitchers especially, the ability to avoid injury, or come back strong from an injury is a very important skill. Even a league average pitcher who goes out and gives 200+ innings a year is very valuable. And these guys weren't league average, they were much better for the most part.

Originally Posted by Triad

Do you hate Phillies or something? Even throwing out his '72 season, Carlton had five other 20-win seasons.

Not at all, he was a terrific pitcher and a no-brainer HoFer, one of the best in recent memory. I'm saying that even if you disregard his career year, he's still a clear HoFer, which is how I see Blyleven.

Originally Posted by Triad

Also, we need to throw out their average-to-substandard seasons, because they have no value to their teams. Carlton had 8 full seasons below 110 ERA+, while Blyleven had five. A career totalling would bring down Carlton for having more substandard seasons, and that doesn't make sense.

Here are their top ERA+ seasons (not counting Carlton's '72):

Carlton__Blyleven
164 .......... 158
162 .......... 151
153 .......... 144
150 .......... 142
126 .......... 140
119 .......... 134

Carlton pitched about 18 more innings on average in each of his seven top ERA+ seasons than Blyleven did in his. Essentially, Carlton went a half-inning longer per start than Blyleven did in his prime, and was worth even that much more to his teams.

Carltons very vest years were better than Blyleven's, no question there. What's interesting is that Blyleven had six other seasons between 119 and 134. Those numbers don't clearly favor either pitcher - Carlton has the top-heavy advantage, whereas Blyleven was more consistently near his peak. I won't argue that Blyleven was better, and obviously if we include Carlton's '72 he opens the gap - but the point isn't comparing Blyleven to Carlton. Carlton's not the bar, he's easilly above it. This shows that Blyleven had his advantages too, and that the gap isn't particularly great between them.

Originally Posted by Triad

Also, Blyleven had three of his top six seasons with 15 or more UER, whereas Carlton had only one of his top six seasons with that many UER. Unearned runs has been suggested to be a better indicator of a pitcher's performance than ER. In Blyleven's "best" season of 158 ERA+, he gave up 18 UER, which doesn't show up in his glimmering ERA.

And probably the most damning evidence of all...

Seasons of at least 5 wins over losses:
(not counting Carlton's '72 season)

Number of wins over losses by season
Carlton__Blyleven
15 ........... 12
13 ........... 12
13 ............. 7
12 ............. 5
11 ............ —
9 .............. —
7 .............. —
6 .............. —
6 .............. —
5 .............. —

My thought there are as they've always been. A breakdown of his career shows that his W/L records don't seem representative of his performance, and I've yet to see anything to suggest otherwise.

Edit:
One other point is, particularly for pitchers, I strongly disagree with the casual dismissal of the value of effective longevity. Workhorse pitchers who consistently give a lot of innings at or above the league average are important parts of most good teams. Career altering injuries are extremely common among pitchers, and guys who you can reliably give the ball to year-in and year-out for 200+ solid innings have value that is a part of a player's career. Blyleven was no longer an ace in 1987, but he pitched 267 innings for a team with only two other guys making double digit starts with an ERA under 5.94. He was the second best pitcher on a team that went on to win the World Series. Seasons like that can't carry a HoF career, but they do have value that shouldn't be casually dismissed. There's always a shortage of dependable pitchers - the ability carry on for about a decade after his prime as a dependable starter does deserve respect, especially when coupled with an excellent prime. We need to look at the whole of a player's career, and there's a big difference between a guy who hangs on as a marginal pitcher for a long time versus one who hangs on as a pretty good one for a long time.

[Steve Avery]

Look folks, I didn't do an in depth study on Blyleven nor do I think one is necessary. Quite frankly, I don't think he's even worthy of discussion as a HOFer.

For starters, he was little more than a .500 pitcher. He won 287 games, but he lost 250. Not only are Jim Kaat's numbers better, didn't he win something like 16 Gold Gloves as a pitcher? And I question whether Kaat belongs. But back to Bert.

He had one 20-win season and that year, he lost 17. Five different times he was one of the five pitchers with the most losses in one season. He was only an All-Star twice, indicating that even managers didn't regard him as one of the ten best pitchers in the league. Heck, the year he won 20 games, six other pitchers won more games.

The year he was the number two guy on a World Series staff (1987), he was a whopping 15-12. And he twice led the league in home runs allowed.

I never thought to myself, "Love to go over to the stadium tonight and see Blyleven pitch."

I don't think it's even close. And if he'd won 271 games as he had at the end of 1989, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Steve Avery

Five different times he was one of the five pitchers with the most losses in one season.

Good post, Steve. I think this is very telling. No one could have that much bad luck. At some point, we have to attribute these things to the player's own lack of skill rather than making excuses like some others are.

Originally Posted by Steve Avery

He was only an All-Star twice, indicating that even managers didn't regard him as one of the ten best pitchers in the league.

Somebody looked at his season splits of the first half and second half, and he did a little better in the second half overall, but that would still be a poor excuse for not getting the nod from the manager picking the All-Star staff. Players are also picked on reputation, and not just what they did in the first half of that season. Almost every year there are pitchers who get selected for being known winners even though they might not have a stellar first half.

Originally Posted by Steve Avery

Heck, the year he won 20 games, six other pitchers won more games.

Good point. I guess some people think if you win 20 games in any season, it must've been a great year. Context. Always context.

Originally Posted by Steve Avery

The year he was the number two guy on a World Series staff (1987), he was a whopping 15-12.

Woo-woo-woo! Hall of Famer, all the way!

Originally Posted by Steve Avery

I never thought to myself, "Love to go over to the stadium tonight and see Blyleven pitch."

So true. He was never one of the four or five most dominant pitchers in the game. He just did very well for a long time, and a lot of people equate that to being elite.

Originally Posted by Steve Avery

I don't think it's even close. And if he'd won 271 games as he had at the end of 1989, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Very true. He padded his career with lackluster seasons at ages 39 and 41. He did have a good season at age 38, but that doesn't mean what happened after that means anything important. Long careers can be very misleading. I put Phil Niekro in the same category as this.