Debating Blyleven's HOF Candidacy

[Triad]

It seems most casual baseball fans think Bert Blyleven is worthy of the Hall of Fame, while he’s only getting moderate support from sportswriters in the HOF voting. It doesn't look like the BBWAA is on course to elect him, so he'll go to the Veterans Committee in a few years and probably get elected then.

Fans are adamant about Blyleven not getting in, saying “It’s ridiculous!” or “He’s a slam dunk case!” or “He’s the most deserving player not in.” These overreaching statements lead me to believe that they’re not looking at all the important data, because at best he’s a borderline case, and Ron Santo, Dick Allen, Rich Gossage, Darrell Evans, Keith Hernandez, Ted Simmons, Minnie Minoso, Jack Morris and Dale Murphy all have more compelling cases than Blyleven does.

I think any argument which claims Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame can be effectively refuted, so give it your best shot. The ones I've seen have been rather weak, including those on sites dedicated to promoting him.

A few preliminary questions for Blyleven proponents:
• 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?
(Note that at the time he was pitching, Blyleven didn't seem like anything special. It wasn't until his 20th season when he increased his career totals past 254 wins with a fine 17-5 season for the Angels, and he shot up the strikeout leader board in those final three seasons past Walter Johnson, Tom Seaver, Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry. Also, in his 20th season, he passed Steve Carlton, Three Finger Brown, Bob Gibson, Ed Walsh, Pud Galvin, and Don Sutton on the career shutouts list by getting five more that year.)

I will support my position with various evidence as the discussion goes along. I’ll start off by challenging the myth that Blyleven played on poor run-scoring teams, because I know that’s implied every time someone tries to defend his mediocre won-loss record.

ARGUMENT I
Let’s look at his 10 best ERA+ seasons, in order starting with his best:

1973—158, 20-17, 325 IP
Minnesota was 6% OVER the league scoring average. And yet he won only 3 more games than he lost.

1977—151, 14-12, 234 IP
Texas was 4% OVER the league scoring average. And yet he won only 2 more games than he lost.

1974—142, 17-17, 281 IP
Minnesota was just barely OVER the league scoring average. And yet he won no more games than he lost.

1984—142, 19-7, 245 IP
Cleveland was 5% OVER the league scoring average. Finally, his W-L reflected that of a great pitcher.

1989—140, 17-5, 241 IP
California was 3% UNDER the league scoring average. Again, his W-L reflected that of a great pitcher.

1985—134, 17-16, 293 IP
Cleveland (9-11) barely UNDER, Minnesota (8-5) 4% UNDER the league scoring average. Still, he won only 1 more game than he lost.

1975—129, 15-10, 275 IP
Minnesota was 5% OVER the league scoring average. About what would be expected for a decent pitcher in terms of W-L.

1971—127, 16-15, 278 IP
Minnesota was 5% OVER the league scoring average. And yet he won only 1 more game than he lost.

1981—126, 11-7, 159 IP
Cleveland was 2% OVER the league scoring average. About what would be expected for a decent pitcher in terms of W-L.

1976—125, 13-16, 297 IP
Minnesota (4-5) 4% OVER, Texas (9-11) 5% UNDER the league scoring average. About what would be expected for a decent pitcher in terms of W-L.

10-year total (his ten best seasons)
149-122 (.549)

His teams averaged 2% OVER the league scoring during that time (he was not a victim of playing for bad teams). Let’s repeat this… 2% OVER the league scoring for the ten years of his best ERA+ seasons.

An average pitcher would be expected to have a .509 winning percentage on those teams, or 138-133 given that number of decisions. In his ten best seasons, Blyleven was merely 11 wins above an average pitcher, or a paltry 1.1 wins per season above an average pitcher. And those were his ten “best” seasons. This is not Hall of Fame material.

What made him underperform in almost all of his "best" seasons? It obviously wasn't due to playing on teams that didn't score well.

Or let’s look at his three best seasons of ERA+…
3-year total
51-46 (.525)

His teams averaged 3% OVER the league scoring during that time.
An average pitcher would be expected to have a .513 winning percentage on those teams, or 50-47. In his three best seasons, he was 1 win above an average pitcher, or only 0.3 wins per season. Not all that great.

Do you still think it was his team’s offenses that kept him from having good W-L records?

This is merely the tip of the iceberg.

I have a further reflection that refutes this myth, but I’ll wait to hear other arguments first.

[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.

I dusted off some old spreadsheets that dabbled in a pitcher evaluation method that could apply across the expanse from 1901 to the present, by weighing various inputs:

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

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

3. Dividing the WHIP average of all pitchers from all eras [11.2] by the figure for the time the pitcher confronted, example Lefty Grove @ 13.0+ in order to provide an equalizer against weak-hitting scenarios <10.0, as in 1908 [Mordecai Brown; Addie Joss] and 1968 [Gibson; Koufax].

The first column is the decimal fraction of 1 and 2 above, indicating how far below league each pitcher held the offense. The second column. having weighed the decades against eachother is simply the product of the pitchers' ERAs, adjusted.

I was a more than a little surprised to see how many pitchers popped out as superior, many not in the HoF and probably NEVER going there. It's also surprising how many HoF are at the margins; and how many guys in the "should he be in?" discussions are right there, too.

I started out with the first colum figures @<.90 and then took the highest qualifying ERA [col. 2] and noted anyone at or under that number: 3.37.

NO active pitchers appear because I haven't updated them. Same for relief pitchers. I have deliberately avoided identifying members of the HoF, because it's interesting to consider guys generally, then look to see who's actually "in."

Pitcher

W. Johnson................ .80.............. 1.73
Alexander.................. .72............... 1.84
Grove....................... .75............... 2.30
Seaver...................... .86............... 2.47
Hubbell...................... .77............... 2.30
Vance....................... .73............... 2.36
Feller........................ .76............... 2.48
K. Brown................... .83.............. 2.66
Appier...................... .81.............. 3.01
Gomez..................... .81.............. 2.71
Bridges.................... .83............... 2.96
Fernandez................ .88............... 2.95
Mays....................... .84............... 2.44
Rixey....................... .82................ 2.59
Warneke.................. .85................ 2.71
Walters..................... .82................ 2.72
Ruffing...................... .83................ 3.16
Lyons....................... .86................ 3.16
Fitsimmons................ .83............... 2.92
Haines...................... .80................ 2.93
Derringer................... .80................ 3.12
Marquard................... .87................ 2.67
Harder....................... .89................ 3.37 [cut-off ERA]
Chandler.................... .77................ 2.18
Dean......................... .79................ 2.38
Pennock.................... .85................ 3.07
VanderMeer............... .87................ 3.01
"Dutch" Leonard......... .82................ 2.66
Brecheen.................. .88................ 2.57
Hughson................... .79................ 2.32
M. Cooper................. .90................ 2.65
J. Allen..................... .77................ 2.87

That was step one, with Mel Harder as initial cut-off for further additions to the list, from here on without any filtering by column 1.

Wilhelm...................... .95................. 2.40
Cy Young................... 1.00................ 2.19
E. Walsh..................... .98................ 1.77
Joss........................... .97................ 1.83
Mathewson................. .96................. 2.05
Koufax....................... .93................. 2.57
Waddell..................... 1.04................. 2.25
Whitey Ford............... .95................. 2.60
Ryan......................... .91................ 2.91
Marichal..................... 1.00................ 2.88
Planck....................... .99................ 2.33
BLYLEVEN................... .92................ 3.22
Palmer........................ 1.00................ 2.87
Drysdale...................... 1.01................ 2.98
Gibson........................ 1.09................ 3.18
Spahn......................... .96................ 2.97
Newhouser................... .93................ 2.83
Messersmith................. .96................. 2.74
G. Perry...................... 1.04................. 3.22 [see Blyleven]
Ruelbach..................... .97.................. 2.22
Cone.......................... .97.................. 3.33
Guidry........................ .96.................. 3.14
Sutton....................... 1.01.................. 3.28 [see Blyleven]
Coveleski.................... .94.................. 2.70
Roberts...................... .98.................. 3.32 [see Blyleven]
Hippo Vaughn.............. .96.................. 2.38
BUNNING.................... 1.03.................. 3.36
Smokey Joe Wood........ .94.................. 1.90
Phillippe..................... 1.02.................. 2.65
Pierce........................ .98.................. 3.22
Leever....................... 1.02.................. 2.53
Leiter........................ .87.................. 3.17
G. Nolan..................... 1.01................. 3.11
Faber......................... .95................. 3.00
Rucker....................... 1.01................. 2.46
"D." White................... 1.01................. 2.41
W. Cooper.................. .99................. 2.85
McGinnity................... 1.05................ 2.79
Trout......................... .97................ 3.13
Trucks....................... .93................. 3.15
Chance...................... 1.11................ 3.21
Hunter....................... .99................. 3.23
Lemon....................... 1.01................. 3.26
McDowell................... 1.03................. 3.27
Lopat........................ .95.................. 3.06
Chesbro..................... 1.02................... 2.75
Passeau..................... .98.................. 3.26
French....................... .93.................. 3.19
Siebert....................... 1.04.................. 3.32
Stottlemyre................. 1.05.................. 3.12
Valenzuela.................. .95.................. 3.34
Overall....................... .98.................. 2.19
R. Ford...................... 1.01.................. 2.63
Maglie....................... .99.................. 3.10
Blackwell................... .92.................. 3.02
Lanier....................... 1.00................... 3.01
Wiltse....................... 1.00................... 2.48
J.R. Richard................ .99................... 3.13

Column 1 is just an initial filter; and the 3.37 adjusted ERA @ Mel Harder marked the second qualifier, just to look at col 1 guys with numbers >.90. Neither column is supposing to have more relevance than the other, although the adjusted ERA, for me, is more like a "class" rating, the lower the better.

Anyone under 3.00 is excellent. The ERA number is a general category, wher anyone under 2.50 would be elite, etc.

Now, here comes the crimp in the hose: the following guys, some in the HoF and some NOT and never-will-bes, fall neither <.90 nor 3.37 and include some pitchers often up for discussion:

Carlton......................1.06................. .... 3.41
Jenkins......................1.02................. .... 3.40
Wynn........................ .99.................... 3.43
Tiant........................ 1.03.................... 3.41
Roe.......................... 1.01.................... 3.48
Blue..........................1.04................ .... 3.40
JOHN.........................1.04................. ... 3.48
Newcombe................. .98.................... 3.50
KAAT.........................1.11................. ... 3.83
Welch........................1.00................. ... 3.48
D. Willis...................... .93.................... 3.45
Garcia........................1.04................ ... 3.40
W. Wood....................1.07................... 3.47

There are no mediocrities here, although there are some late starts, military service interruptions, both, sore arm abbreviated careers, at least one extreme hot-headed character who blew out his career, and a guy i'd consider 'father of the Knuckleball" who toiled effectively for 20 years without much historical recognition. Some guys have followings to urge them in; and more than a few [better, too] will never get in, not even getting a HoF "peep."

Problem is, one borderliner gets in and the floodgates might open. It could be argued that's already happened.

[bedir than average]

Triad, when I convert Blyleven to playing on a team with average offense in a league that scores 4.42 r/g he leaps to 324-228.

I'm having trouble figuring this out, but can anyone use a database to figure out how many Losses BB was assessed by bequething runners for his relief corp and how that fairs v. his league at the time?

[nanwynnfan]

bedir, Triad: I tried to scout around for a database providing input bedir requested with no luck.

Don't know if this helps; but I stuck with bedir's 4.42 R/G model and went to Baseball Prospectus, where they have a stat, PRAA [Pitching Runs Above Average], aggregated for pitching career. They break this into two components:

a. total pitching runs, regardless of function;

b. isolated pitching runs, allegedly leaving out the modifier provided by defense ... it doesn't amount to much; but it took this, the lesser number, to be conservative.

Dividing that isolated PRAA by IP yields runs saved/inning pitched; and multiplying that by 9 SHOULD give us a pitching runs/game for each pitcher against the 4.42 model.

That required selecting pitchers who were contemporaries, including handedness [L & R], both leagues. Here's how they look [some in the HoF; some not]:

Pitcher............PRAA/IP.......RS/IP......RS/9IG.....Runs vs. 4.42

Blyleven.........321/4970.... .0632....... .569........... 3.84

Guidry............184/2392.... .0769....... .692........... 3.73

Seaver...........441/4782.7. .0922....... .830........... 3.59

Carlton..........236/5217.3. .0452........ .407........... 4.01

Niekro...........317/5404.3. .0587......... .528............ 3.89

Palmer...........229/3948.... .0580......... .522............ 3.90

Sutton..........155/5282.3. .0293......... .264............ 4.16

From this aspect, Blyleven belongs.

[nanwynnfan]

Here's another angle on Blyleven and the pitchers comped above as contemporaries. I took the number of Games, then subtracted Games Started [since some guys did have a few relief appearances]. While my next step is an exaggeration, I believe, I then subtracted 2 innings pitched for each relief appearance from total IP, to get an idea of depth of game per start.

Since we're dealing with an era [roughly 1970-1990] when starters, despite dropping off in completed games, were still far ahead of today's pace, I tossed in Shutouts [a vanishing breed] per start, as well. Here are the results for that:

Pitcher.................IP Deep/Start........ShO/Start %

Blyleven..................7.24.................... 8.76%

Guidry.....................6.26................... .8.05

Seaver....................7.36.................... 9.43

Carlton...................7.27.................... .7.76

P. Niekro.................7.13.....................6. 28

Palmer....................7.44.................... 10.17

Sutton...................6.94..................... .7.67

In terms of being a "horse" relative to his peers, Blyleven certainly fits; and, in an age when "quality start" standards are so economical, I feel a shut-outs per start is an equally valid clue to how often "horses" do it extra-well.

[Grandstander]

I compliment you both on the complexity of thought presented in your analysis of Blyleven's HoF candidacy. I post not to argue with the points raised by either of you, but to pose the question: Is there utility to trying to evaluate Blyleven's chances/merit employing evaluation methods which are not being used by those who do the voting?

What is being presented here is a debate concerning whose refined standards are the more compelling, but regardless of which approach is actually superior, neither will have an application for the reality.

The real basis for evaluating his chances would be in seeing how well Blyleven's career conforms to the mindsets demonstrated by the voters over the years. The Bill James Hof monitor and HoF standards are going to have better predictive value because they are based on voter behavior, not the true merit of the player extracted from advanced statistical analysis. James' tools suggest that Blyleven should eventually make it.

Blyleven's candidacy has been a slow evolution toward credibility. He debuted in the voting in 1998, gathering only 17.5 %.
Since then, through the '07 vote, it has been:
14.1%
17.4%
23.5%
26.3%
29.2%
35.4%
40.9%
53.3%
47.7%

I don't know if his slight backslide in '07 means that he has peaked, but the pattern has been that the further we get from Blyleven's actual career, the more fondly he is being remembered. If he doesn't get voted in, he seems a good candidate for the reformed Veteran's committee.

Your debate then, would really be one which is concerned with which one of you has constructed the superior ideal standards for a HoF pitcher. You both presented impressive cases, but your briefs aren't really about whether or not Blyleven will ever get in, they are about superior HoF criteria for all pitchers.

[nanwynnfan]

Thanks for the comments; but the discussion isn't really about either of us or our approaches, especially in light of the fact that they are unlikely to gather the recognition James and his diverse body of work already has.

Bill James, for all he done for baseball statistics, has nonetheless introduced many concepts that he has since reconsidered, re-defined or totally discarded.
While you may be quite right that James' crystal-balling the mindsets of past HoF voters, using THAT particular approach bestows more honors of James' opinion-gathering than it does on the players under consideration.

For the purposes of a fan forum discussion, I prefer evaluative approaches that might depart a bit from already well-beaten paths, so long as there is some practical baseball logic behind them.

Your observation about vote patterns is correct; but let's face it - they've made some awful judgements throughout the years, and some very biased ones at that.

[nanwynnfan]

Final notes on Blyleven & then I'll rest my case.

1. Good portions of 3 seasons were hindered by elbow problems ['81-'83];

2. His 15 seasons with >15 wins, including one 20-game season; and, in his 19-7 season, he lost a month with a groin pull injury, [perhaps foolishly] pitching through pain;

3. Naysayers identify him unfairly with the gopher ball, sad, in that it focuses on two consecutive seasons in which he surrendered 50 and 46 lon balls respectively. Two points, despite that, his career comes in at,778 HR/9IG, very musch competitive with his peers mentioned above. Absent those two seasons, he's at .678 HR/9IG. Some added comparisons, per 9 IP:

Pitcher.................HR/9IG.........K..........BB........K/BB Ratio

Blyleven................. .778........6.70......2.39.........2.80
Guidry.................... .850.......6.69.......2.38.........2.81
Seaver................... .715.......6.85.......2.62.........2.61
Carlton................... .714.......7.13.......3.16.........2.26
P. Niekro................. .803.......5.57.......3.01.........1.85
Palmer.................... .691.......5.04.......2.99.........1.69
Sutton.................... .804.......6.09.......2.29.........2.66

The above stats reflect pitchers not inclined to walk themselves into trouble, and to have a bit extra on the ball in either speed or stuff to get an added power edge on hitters.

The ratio is used by some as a separate measure of mastery and control, seeing 2-1 to be superior. I wouldn't rely on that too heavily because MLB has had some superb finesse and control pitchers whose numbers came nowhere near to that 2-1 ratio of K/BB.

[Grandstander]

nan:
While you may be quite right that James' crystal-balling the mindsets of past HoF voters, using THAT particular approach bestows more honors of James' opinion-gathering than it does on the players under consideration.
I would suspect that the James' tools are in need of updating, not changing the premise of examing voter tendencies, but rather checking to see how the standards may have evolved in the two decades since James invented the method. In the era of high offense which has come since James first crafted his methods, the totals which formerly were impressive enough to score points in the system, may no longer seem as impressive. Twenty years ago, I don't think you would have found many people arguing that any player with 500 plus homeruns wasn't a lock for enshrinement, now, as evidenced by the debate over Thome's qualifications, it is no longer a sure fire deal.

Further, James himself may have contributed to altering the perceptions of who is and is not a HoFamer by popularizing advanced statistical analysis. How often a player walked, or how good a player really was despite a low batting average, these were not factors which formerly had much if any weight in player evaluation.

[nanwynnfan]

Agreed. However, I do hope that the impact James' methods made in their [his] heyday do not have a lingering effect on selectors looking back on a career[s] that took place just when James was sowing his formulas.

That would place Blyleven [and other guys at the cusp] between formulaic evaluation and the pressure of new/old HoF candidates, a situation in which the baby [candidate] gets tossed out with the bathwater.

Edit = Added note]:

I went to Baseball-Reference, where they actually use player comps based on the James com models; and here's Blyleven's bottom-of-page entry:

1. Don Sutton (914) *
2. Gaylord Perry (909) *
3. Fergie Jenkins (890) *
4. Tommy John (889)
5. Robin Roberts (876) *
6. Tom Seaver (864) *
7. Jim Kaat (854)
8. Early Wynn (844) *
9. Phil Niekro (844) *
10. Steve Carlton (840) *


Most Similar by Age

19. Pink Hawley (978) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
20. Chief Bender (989) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
21. Chief Bender (971) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Larry Dierker (959) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Larry Dierker (934) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Charlie Getzein (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Charlie Getzein (914) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Don Drysdale (932) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Don Drysdale (941) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Don Drysdale (934) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Don Drysdale (933) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Don Drysdale (940) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Don Sutton (931) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Don Sutton (926) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Don Sutton (935) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Don Sutton (934) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Don Sutton (929) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Don Sutton (904) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
37. Don Sutton (889) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Don Sutton (905) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
39. Don Sutton (920) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
41. Don Sutton (921) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

HoFers galore.

[jtur88]

If it were the purpose of the Hall of Fame to separate out the "good" players from the rest and honor them, that would be one thing, but it is not.

I strongly suspect (but do not know) that the origin of the HoF was a bunch of people who regretted that the players they remembered would not be remembered by their children or grandchildren, so they rented a building and put some plaques in it, to that effect.

It was just as well they did, or else what where would I have heard about Zack Wheat when I was ten years old? The whole idea was that these were the guys whose memories they WANTED to keep alive. Not because they had superior OBS adjusted for park,, but because they were thought to be memorable by people who were their contemporaries.

Bert Blyleven was a journeyman 14-game-winner, who if he inspired anything, he isnpired middle-aged men to say to their kids, "That guy is older than I am!"

Who are the recent players that you want your grandchildren to know about? Blyleven? Frankly, I'd rather tell my grandkids about J. R. Richard and Ron Guidry.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I strongly suspect (but do not know) that the origin of the HoF was a bunch of people who regretted that the players they remembered would not be remembered by their children or grandchildren, so they rented a building and put some plaques in it, to that effect.
.

Nothing so sentimental. The origin of the Hall of Fame was a group of Cooperstown businessmen looking for a way to cash in on the legend of baseball originating with Abner Doubleday in Cooperstown. It's purpose was...tourist attraction, revenue generator.

[Nat]

I've always been sympathetic to the Blyleven cause, but at this point think another borderline pitcher more deserving, like Gossage, should be ushered in first.

[jtur88]

Yes, if we're going to put in one of the borderline relievers, make sure its a Yankee.

[nanwynnfan]

"Bert Blyleven was a journeyman 14-game-winner, who if he inspired anything, he isnpired middle-aged men to say to their kids, "That guy is older than I am!"

How disingenuous of you, jtur! What did you do, take Blyleven's 22 year career, knock out the 1982 season where his elbow problems limited him to 20.33 IP and then divide his 287 wins by 21? I doubt you put even that much thought in coming up with your "14 game-winner" nonsense.

Responding in-kind, Guidry [I took out a bit of low IP career] is another 14 game-winner; and J.R. Richard comes of a 13 game-winner.

All of the above deserve better.