Gelukkig Nieuwjaar!!
Is there a more fitting way for unutterably lonely souls to mark the cusp of another annum than by summoning what's left of sober attention to wrestle with Bert Blyleven's Hall of Fame bona fides?
Readers can decide whether I paint too rosy or too bleak a picture of baseball's Dutch master with this brush, for I mostly aim to illustrate how HOF balloting is, like the sport it sometimes arbitrarily honors, a game of inches.
Blyleven, for example, barely missed an automatic ride to Cooperstown with 300 victories, yet he recorded the thirteenth most wins since WWII ( 26th all time, going back to the 19th century). Perhaps that doesnt warrant a first ballot selection, but considering that seventy pitchers have been inducted to date, it's an impressive figure.
Thirty four HOF hurlers won fewer games than Blyleven. The only retired modern 
pitcher not inducted with more wins than Bert(287) was Tommy John(288), who latched on with a fortuitous run of playoff caliber teams through his 26 year career. Rik Aalbert Blyleven debuted in 1970, toiling for mediocre, small market ballclubs until he hooked up with 3 playoff teams over a nineteen year span, including the "We Are Family" Pirates of 1979. He started six postseason games, winning five with a 2.47 ERA.
His 3701 strikeouts rank fifth all time, sandwiched by Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver, and he sported a better K/BB ratio than either contemporary CYA fixture. He threw sixty shutouts, fourth most since the demise of the dead ball. Nolan Ryan (who started 88 more games than Blyleven) and Seaver (who pitched in Shea in the 1960's) each threw 61. Consider these career shutout totals: Bob Gibson 56, Carlton 55, Palmer 53, Clemens 46. Bob Feller had 44 shutouts and Randy Johnson 37.
He pitched 4970 innings, thirteenth all time - not an all time innings hound like Neikro, Ryan or Gaylord Perry, but more than Clemens, Maddux or Christy Mathewson.
These selective stats dont prove that Blyleven was as good as any of these guys, but it does show how comfortably he flitted in and out of the statistical mix with first rung, iconic legends like Seaver, Ryan & Carlton. Does that, by itself, put him in Cooperstown?
Well, he lost 250 games too, which has probably hurt his HOF candidacy more 
than just falling shy of 300 wins. If, for instance, he had gone 287-230, with all those strikeouts, he'd already have a plaque. But he's 37 games over .500 and only Eppa Rixey(pictured,right) and Nolan Ryan have a lower Win % amongst HOF starters.
He won 20 in just one season and never won a Cy Young Award. In 1984, he was the AL's leading vote getter among starters, but lost out to a couple of closers. He contended in 1985 and 1989, but Bret Saberhagen won both times.
Perhaps the most eye popping stat from Blyleven's career is that a pitcher of his caliber and longetivity earned just two All Star berths. One reason is because his lifetime ERA before Aug 1st was closer to 4.00 than to 3.00 (and sub 3.00 after Aug 1). It's also tougher for pitchers to string together AS appearances the way position players do - some excellent pitchers made the HOF with three or four AS selections. Is there anything else, perhaps, to explain a pair of ASG's for such a dominant player wielding the game's best curveball?
Maybe. Blyleven's career was dogged by accusations of underacheivement and stats padding. I remember him fussing with managers out on the mound and he was characterized by broadcasters of the day as enormously talented but not terribly well liked or team oriented. I also recall Jim Palmer fussing endlessly on the mound with Earl Weaver and Steve Carlton's icy relationship with the press - and neither derailed their quests for a plaque.
The clock is ticking on Bert Blyleven and I suspect he'll come very close to induction, perhaps 70% or so. Tonight, the clock also ticks for each of us around the world, as we English say 'Happy New Year!!'.
And in Amsterdam, ' Gelukkig Nieuwjaar!!'
Welcome Back!
Kellia
Life, Baseball & Eric Byrnes
http://byrnesblog.mlblogs.com
Report any abuse or spam
In looking at the stats and at other Hall of Famers, there are two different angles to examine: If Don Sutton is in, then Blyleven should be in; but should Don Sutton be in? If Blyleven were playing for those 70s Dodgers teams, he would probably have had more wins than Sutton, but that's speculation. If Sutton shouldn't be in, then why exacerbate the mistake and diminish the qualifications by putting Blyleven in? I'm not a believer in the "magic number" theories of 300 wins; 500 homers; 3000 hits; etc. Ryan should be in because he was dominant even though he wasn't able to rack up huge numbers of wins; almost 6000 strikeouts and 324 total wins eclipse any accusations of mediocrity. But with guys like Sutton and Blyleven, the argument can be looked at both ways. They racked up wins and strikeouts; and their overall stats compare with Seaver and Carlton in everything but winning percentages and awards, but are they on the same level? In looking at Sutton's stats, I would say no; objectively, Sutton probably shouldn't have made it; therefore Blyleven shouldn't be in either.
Report any abuse or spam
Thanks for the comments Paul. As usual, all good points. I'd toss in Neikro,Catfish and perhaps Jenkins as other comparables to Blyleven and Sutton.
Its funny how Blyleven inevitably gets compared, unfavorably of course, to Seaver, Carlton and the slew of HOF pitchers who debuted in the 1960s,I guess mostly because of his high K and shutout totals, but the truth is he was considerably younger than all those guys and not quite a true contemporary. Ten starters who debuted in the '60s are HOF - not incl quintessential 60's guys like Gibson & Drysdale who debuted a bit earlier. The only ALers were Catfish and Palmer, who of course pitched on great teams, and Ryan, who didnt. By contrast, not a single starter who debuted in the 70's decade is HOF ( assuming no Eck, Morris or Bert)in either league and I presume the next HOF pitcher's debut wont be until 1984(Clemens). IOW, there are 10 HOFers debuting between 1960(Marichal) and 1967(Seaver), but zero between 1968 and 1983, when a new bunch will push for induction after Clemens(Pedro, Maddux, Glavine, maybe Smoltz & Hershiser). We dont need to jump to a chronological quota system(ie so many inductees per decade), but I have a gnawing feeling something's not being properly captured in context to fully appreciate the 1970's starters' accomplishments. Perhaps the advent of the DH and lowering of the mound have something to do with it?
Report any abuse or spam
I think you're giving the voters too much credit when you suggest a chronological quota system; I think a large majority of them just vote without even looking at any stats. Some vote yay or nay based on whether or not the player said 'Good morning' to them (Jim Rice anyone?)
After a quick glance at the records of Hunter and Jenkins, both are easily HOFers. I think Morris should be in as well. Niekro was on some pretty horrendous teams and his record is still quite good. Eckersley should be in for his dual sided career--a good starter and a great reliever. Almost 200 wins and almost 400 saves is an impact in a lot of games. If Smoltz wants to get in, he'll have to get to about 225 wins or so, which I think he'll do. Out of that list, the only one who may have to wait awhile is Hershiser---and as the years pass he'll benefit from people liking him.
Report any abuse or spam
Paul,
I'm not espousing a quota system, just pointing out there's this 16 year gap (between Seaver & Clemens)where not a single HOF starting pitcher emerged, preceded by an 9 yr era that produced eleven HOF starters. Surely, there's a legitimate ebb and flow as to positional greatness and I'm open to the idea that there were more great starters in the '60's than later - but 16 years (one sixth of a century) is one heck of a gap to explain away by pure chance, considering there's about 55 starters (excl Negroe Leaguers) in Cooperstown.
HOF voters often ask, "Was the candidate dominant at his position?". Well, "somebody" was the best ******* pitcher when Clemens & Maddux were in high school, be it Blyleven, Morris, Guidry, Saberhagen or whomever, and it seems reasonable (as distinct from absolutely correct) that HOF voters ought to figure out who that "somebody" was and reward him for being the best pitcher in the context of that era.
I agree that most fans, incl HOF voters, who saw Blyleven and Catfish pitch would say Hunter was more of a HOFer, and "at a glance", he certainly was. There's so much more info today for comparative analysis, however, it's really a matter of how far you want to drill down -and the more one explores context (era,teams,parks) Blyleven was every bit the equal of Catfish. Considering longetivity, Bert clearly had a more valuable career, at least from a statistical standpoint.
Jenkins and Neikro I'm not so confident about in comparison to Blyleven-I'll do some more digging. They were both outstanding, but each enjoyed two big advantages over Bert. One, they padded their early stats in the 1960s and two, neither pitched as much in the AL vs the DH(1973), when runs per game significantly increased.
Report any abuse or spam
You mentioned an interesting name in Ron Guidry. Guidry was unlucky in that he didn't stick in the big leagues until he was 26 and ran out of steam at 35. If he had come to the big leagues at 24 and won say 12 games in each of those seasons; then had some productive years at 35, 36, 37---say 13 wins a year, that would add up around 65 wins more or less. Say he lost 45 or so; that would put his career record at 235-136. He'd be in then; and probably pretty easily. And Guidry was way better than Blyleven, John and Sutton.
Report any abuse or spam
Games Over .500 (career)
Palmer +116 HOF
Seaver +106 HOF
Marichal +101 HOF
Carlton +85 HOF
GUIDRY +79 ????????????
Koufax +78 HOF
Gibson +77 HOF
MORRIS +68 ????????????
Sutton +68 HOF
Jenkins +58 HOF
Catfish +58 HOF
Perry +49 HOF
Neikro +44 HOF
Drysdale +43 HOF
Bunning +40 HOF
Ryan + 32 HOF
I realize a great deal of a pitcher's "value" is in just being average(ie .500) and Guidry didnt pitch a whole lotta games, but he still won more than Koufax or Dizzy Dean, neither of whom was a borderline kind of selection.
Report any abuse or spam