Blyleven makes important jump
Posted on January 8th, 2008 – 1:17 PMBy Joe Christensen
Bert Blyleven didn’t get elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame on Tuesday, but he made a big enough jump to suggest he’ll get there eventually.
In his 11th year on the ballot, Blyleven received 61.9 percent of the vote. A player needs 75 percent of the vote to gain entry, and they are eligible on the Baseball Writers Association of America ballot for up to 15 years.
Blyleven’s percentage slipped from 53 percent to 47 percent in the previous two elections, but he just got a 15 percent bump. He finished fourth in the balloting behind Goose Gossage (86 percent, the only player elected this year), Jim Rice (72 percent) and Andre Dawson (66 percent).
In his ninth year on the ballot, Jack Morris received 42.9 percent of the vote. That’s up from 37 percent last year, but he probably would have felt better about his eventual chances if he had been closer to 50.
Update: I spoke to Bert, and he was in good spirits. He said his wife, Gayle, predicted he’d receive 62 percent of the vote, and she was right.
“I’m very happy for Goose Gossage,” he said. “That’s something that should have happened years ago. I know Goose vented last year, and Jim Rice will probably vent this year. You find yourself — when you get to close, and you know your numbers are there — you get upset. I was upset before, and now I just look at it and say it’s out of my hands, what can I do?”
35 Responses to "Blyleven makes important jump"
Blyleven and Morris really deserve to be in the Hall …
What? No love for Knoblauch?
As far as Bert goes, there are three things you can count on: death, taxes, and Blyleven getting snubbed.
I’m hoping it doesn’t take him being on his “last” ballot to finally get in.
JoeC, I do have one question…how does the HoF ballot work? Are you given X-number of votes or could you check the whole list if you wanted?
Circle Bert….HoF.
T, voters can vote for up to 10 players.
Henderson’s a shoe in next year and I’d bet money on Rice getting that extra couple of votes he needs in his last year of eligibility. I’m not sure the voters will elect more than two guys so I’m guessing Dawson and Blyleven are both in that 70% range. Would be interesting, then, to look at who the new names on the ballot will be in 2010 because realistically, that looks like the year when Blyleven’s best chance is going to come.
I know I’m in the minority on this (especially around here), but if there were a Hall of Really, Really Good, Blyleven and Morris (and Rice and Dawson) would make it, no problem.
Hall of Fame? Longevity shouldn’t be the overriding factor…and Bert’s “color commentary” doesn’t help his case in my book, either.
2010’s ballot possibilities- Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Shane Reynolds, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile (from ESPN.com)
To me- only Alomar and Larkin and MAYBE Martinez should even be considered…
The argument for allowing Blyleven, Morris, Rice and Dawson into the HOF is that there are already players with similar or worse stats in the Hall. Since you can’t boot those other guys out, why not let these players in?
Because then it would be like the NFL HOF that lets almost everyone in?
I think I’m on the ballot in a couple years….
Kirk, I agree that longevity should not be the “overriding” factor… but I do think it should be one factor. In other words, not everyone who plays for 20 years should be voted in… but someone who was consistently “very very good” over a 20 year period should warrant consideration, in my opinion.
Like most awards for pitchers, “wins” gets too much weight in this thing. If Blyleven had 300 wins, he’d already be in the HoF. But can anyone realistically look at the teams he played on during his career, compare his personal stats with other pitchers of that era, and not conclude that he’d easily have 300+ wins (not to mention far more consideration for All Star and Cy Young votes) if he were playing on better, or at least higher profile, teams?
If you’re going to penalize a guy for having played for small-mid market teams during down years, then we’d all better just accept that anyone with HoF aspirations is going to make sure they spend a significant part of their career playing in NY or Boston.
Oh, and thanks Kirk for the 2010 list. Nobody on that list should be a first ballot choice (if even an “any ballot” choice), so I’d say I like Blyleven’s chances in 2010.
Everyone is forgetting one man that should be in The hall of Fame is ROGER MARIS who set the all time home run of 61 beating Babe Ruths record.
I think Bert gets consideration due to numbers that he amassed due to being around into his 40’s (and starting his MLB career at 19). If you look at his numbers, there are a lot of very good stats there, but, even on a losing team, you could never, ever say that he was THE best, or even one of the top 10 best, in the majors. Heck, he wasn’t even really THE best on most of his teams in his career. He put up really good numbers over many, many innings, but he wasn’t the epitome of pitchers.
Also, I look at Don Sutton- really, really good numbers, but he was never the stud even on his own team, let alone the majors. I don’t think he should be in. And his numbers are, for the most part, better than Bert’s.
Lastly, we’re talking about a different era- the small, mid-market team argument doesn’t hold water for me when you are talking about the 70’s and first half of the 80’s, because the big market clubs didn’t hold the monopoly on stars like they do now, where they are the only teams that can even afford the great stars. Free agency wasn’t then what it is now. In fact, if you look at Bert’s teammates for the Twins in the early 70’s, you have Kaat and Perry, giving the Twins some true solid starting pitching. In today’s age, that type of rotation doesn’t happen, but back then it did.
Sorry, but Bert shouldn’t be in. That doesn’t mean that he WON’T get in, we’ve seen guys like Sutter who started with %’s in the mid-20’s, and climbed up to 75%.
But Blyleven’s first year of eligibility was 1998, when Sutton was the only one elected, and he only got about 16% of the votes THAT year. If he makes it in, it will only be because of revisionist history and backwards logic–looking at a 20+ year career of stats and concluding that someone with those numbers MUST have been a dominant pitcher, even though over 80% of baseball writers immediately following his retirement didn’t think so.
Only 1 getting in is a joke. They need to revamp the whole process
If he makes it in, it will only be because of revisionist history and backwards logic–looking at a 20+ year career of stats and concluding that someone with those numbers MUST have been a dominant pitcher, even though over 80% of baseball writers immediately following his retirement didn’t think so.
If he makes it in, it will be because 12 years of beating those ignorant baseball writers over the head with plain and simple facts finally got through to them. Just because a majority of baseball writers find something to be true does not make it so. Sixty-one percent of baseball writers thought Bartolo Colon was the best pitcher in the American League in 2005.
The small-mid market point I’m refering to here isn’t about competitiveness so much as media attention. If you’re going to evaluate a guy using AS appearances and CY awards as criteria instead of ERA, shutouts and complete games, then you need to look in to how those awards are handed out.
How many of the teams Blyleven played on were among the “one token All Star selection” group? Throwing out the W-L record, how did Blyleven’s stats measure up to the top 5 CY vote getters each year?
I just think it’s rediculous that when guys are asked why Jim Rice isn’t worthy, they say, “well, yes, he was top-5 in MVP voting 6 times and an All Star 8 times, but his career numbers just don’t measure up”, but when they’re asked about Blyleven, you get, “well, yes his career numbers are very impressive and better than a ton of pitchers already in the Hall, but did you notice he only had 2 AS appearances?”
You put Blyleven on the A’s and Yankees instead of the Twins, Rangers and Pirates, during the 70s and early 80s and he’d be in the Hall already. Don’t think so? Compare his stats with Catfish Hunter’s.
Catfish doesn’t belong
Sometimes it takes a little time to reflect on a career. Not everyone is first ballot HOF. Just because a guy doesn’t get a high percentage on the first vote that he isn’t a worthy candidate. Blyleven should be in the Hall, in my opinion, and the fact that he didn’t get a high percentage of the vote in his early years of eligibility means absolutely nothing to me.
fyi… there’s a poll on the Rice thing at this link.
http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/01/08/hall-of-fame-gossage-in-rice-out-was-rice-fleeced/
It would be interesting to know how many wins Bert would’ve had if he pitched for, say, the Reds, Yankees, and A’s instead of the Pirates, Twins, and Indians. I know he won two WS rings, but those winning seasons were few and far between. Even with above average teams, Bert probably increases his 287 wins by two each healthy year x 20 years= 320 wins.
It’s interesting to see that his WS rings are hardly mentioned in writer’s commentaries.
But—the Twins were decent in the early 70’s- they were at or around .500 from 71 to 75…
The Pirates won the World Series in 1979 while he was with them (and he was their third starter at age 29)…
The Twins in 87? Pretty good too…and he wasn’t their top starter…
And, no, Catfish Hunter shouldn’t be in, even with his stats…
when looking at Bert career, does one factor his dominating curveball for HOF consideration. I never saw him play, but people today compare a good curveball to Bert’s
—
Joe, since you are a voter I was wondering, is there a big meeting with all or most of the writers to discuss each player like the NFL HOF does with thier list, or is it everyman for themselves? Do you talk with other HOF voters to get information or try to sway them to one candidate or vice versa?
What about Tony Oliva didnt he do something and Bert Blyleven with his famous hanging curve ball I saw him pitch his first game at the old met and he blew me away, he still does it
As most all of you already said, Bert should be in the hall. If Bert played most of his years on average or good teams everyone knows he would be a 320 wins pitcher and in the HOF. Bert dominated in the world series and had a VERY succesful 20 year career with a incredibly stron 3 ERA. PUT HIM IN THE HALL
Kirk Mack:
The Twins winning percentage from 1971-1975 was .489. Blyleven’s winning percentage during those 5 seasons was .528. His ERA was never above 3.00 in any of those seasons.
Do you think if he played for the A’s during those years, he might have had a better winning percentage?
With Bert’s awesome curvebill alone, which was very unhittable for the majority of his career, he should be voted in …
I consider Bert a borderline HOFer, but I think he should, and will, get in in the next couple of years.
As for the argument that players with worse stats are in: I don’t buy it. A player should get in on his own merits, not because the Writers may have screwed up and elected someone else who was undeserving.
You’re assuming that the writers “screwed up” by voting those other people in. I would argue what they did was establish a standard that fans should be able to use to make a case for others with similar statistics in the future. Otherwise, let’s just call it the Eastern Seaboard HoF and elect every Yankee and Red Sock who becomes a media favorite and be done with it.
Rice and Blyleven got hosed today!
Rice was one of if not the most dominating hitter of his era… an era that had a lot of great pitching like Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris. Heck, even lousy pitchers like the Twins had in the 80’s would be 18 million dollar a year ACES now.
For example (fictional) Roger Erickson’s 3.79 ERA, Al Williams 3.89 ERA and John Butcher’s 4.34 era would make them All Stars practically…
Blyleven said earlier in the year that he was never a free agent. That means he never chose where he played. He didn’t choose to play for Cleveland or Texas. He was fortunate to play in Pittsburgh and win a World Series, and here in Minnesota round 2 where in 87 it was him and Viola… that was it until they got to Berrenger and Reardon.
Had Blyleven not been one of the best clubhouse people in all of baseball he could have been a jerk and demanded trades, or refused to sign long term contracts, but he just pitched…
Put his statistics for the Yankees or Dodgers in those days… and he makes Don Sutton and Tommy John look like Milli and Vanilli. Put him next to Guidry in the late 70’s! Put him on the Orioles with Palmer… Put him on any of those decent teams and he would have 320-330 wins.
Did he make his team better? What was his winning percentage as a career compared to the winning percentage of the teams he was playing for? I think that’s a pretty good test! Ask the hitters he faced. He didn’t walk that many people even inspite of being a great strikeout pitcher. He didn’t just have longevity for years… he was an inning eating machine! He hated to be taken out of games… it was the only time you’d ever see him look angry.
I am going to try and find the stats… his winning percentage vs the teams he was on… then maybe someone important might find the stat, and say… WOW… We screwed up all these years. Sorry Bert! Welcome Home!
JimC, I’m assuming nothing. I’m saying that I wouldn’t vote for someone just because another player with less impressive stats was in unless I believed that the player was a true HOFer.
But saam, you and I don’t have a vote… the writers do. So the debate isn’t about who I would vote for or you would vote for, it’s about who the writers SHOULD vote for. Which means that using the stats for prior inductees playing the same position in the same era should be a reasonable standard to judge whether the same voters should elect Blyleven.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m too picky, but I just think the Hall should be for the elite. I think Blyleven and Rice are in the “great” category, but not the elite. I also don’t think Goose should have made it. By him making, didn’t they just put every established closer in? Do we put Rick Aguilera in now?
FYI…Santana update below. i guess Hank S. won’t go past 5 years with an extension. Wouldn’t Johan just veto the trade, then?
http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/01/09/santana-update-yanks-wont-go-past-5-years/
Jim, I agree with your last post completely. (And I DO think Bert should get in.)
Kirk - You make a good, logical case, and at one time I would have agreed with you. However, there has been extensive statistical analysis done (led by Rob Neyer of ESPN, among others) that shows that Blyleven was far better than even his great surface stats show. The Bill James type analysts have come up with all sorts of statistical ways to adjust stats (ERA, wins, etc.) to equalize players across the teams they played with, the parks they played in, etc. Blyleven’s adjusted stats clearly show him as dominant in his era well beyond his win totals and ERA records.
Add to that and to an assortment of similar analyses the fact that he is fifth ALL-TIME in strikeouts and I’m totally convinced he belongs.
(BTW, Neyer and others have used similar analyses to show that Rice shouldn’t make it. Things like the huge bump in raw stats he got from Fenway, among several other things.)
It also seems to me that Cy Young and other voting awards shouldn’t mean as much as they do. Those things depend so much on wins, which in turn depend on the teams pitchers play for. To say nothing of faulty perceptions of voters who don’t follow things beyond the surface.
