Blyleven and Clemens
Two pitchers are on my mind tonight. Roger Clemens and Bert Blyleven.
First Clemens:
* The possibility exists that Clemens is innocent but he pays for the sin of those who come before him. That's why he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in many quarters. Pete Rose screamed for years that he was innocent. Eventually he wrote a book that described his gambling transgressions in minute detail. The sporting populace is far too jaded to give anybody the benefit of the doubt.
* Clemens deftly sidesteps issues. At the press conference, a reporter tried to ask him how he went from 6-6 to winning 20 games in a year in which McNamee said he used steroids. Clemens immediately launched into a rant about how the Hall of Fame didn't mean anything.
* Clemens comes across as somebody who is trying to win a battle of He Said, She Said by yelling the loudest and being the most intimidating. That usually works in bars and talk show radio. It could work here if there is no corroborating evidence to McNamee's allegations. That seems to be the strategy for Clemens. Most interesting was when he asked Mike Wallace where are the people who sold him steroids and begged them to come forward. He seems to know that's not going to happen.
* You would get fired at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram if you taped a phone conversation without telling the other person. That seems pretty low and smacked of desperation. If McNamee had said wrong things contrary to the Clemens position, that phone tape would have been at the bottom of Galveston Bay.
* Said it before and will continue to say it, especially when people ask if Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, anybody should be in the Hall of Fame: this story is far from over. There is much more to come.
Now Blyleven.
The Hall of Fame voting is going to be announced on Tuesday and Blyleven is not going to get in. And there are people who I respect greatly who say that is dead wrong. Rob Neyer is one and I really respect him.
I didn't vote for Blyleven. Again. I have such respect for him and some of his supporters that I keep looking hard at his career to see a reason to vote. I can't come up with one.
I have seen the numbers. I know he has 287 wins, 60 shutouts and 3,701 strikeouts. I have heard people say that if Don Sutton is in the Hall of Fame then Blyleven should be.
But I just don't believe that Blyleven was ever considered one of the elite pitchers in the game and has the credentials to be considered one of the best pitchers of his time. Here are my arguments.
* In the 1970's, during the prime of his career, he was an All-Star once. That was in 1973 and that was the only year in which he received Cy Young votes. That was the year he won 20 games and had his nine shutouts. One time?
* From 1976-1980, when he was 25-30 years old, he was traded three times. Do elite pitchers get traded that often?
* Everybody said he played for bad teams. That's overblown. The Minnesota Twins were 240-238 in a three-year period between 1972-74. Blyleven was 54-51 in those three years.
* There were 96 20-game winners in the 1970's. That's 9.6 per season. Blyleven, who was a rookie in 1970, did it once. I count 19 of those 20-game winners doing it for a team with a losing record. A pitcher won at least 18 games in a season 156 times in that decade. Blyleven did it once. He did it just once more in the 1980's in a decade in which a pitcher won at least 18 games in a season 87 times. Over a 20-year period, when an average of 12 pitchers per year were winning at least 18 games, Blyleven did it twice.
* Blyleven pitched for the Rangers in 1977 and the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1978-80. His teams averaged 90 wins a year. He averaged 12 wins a year in that stretch. He was 12-5 in 37 starts for the Pittsburgh Pirates when they won 98 games and a World Series in 1979.
Blyleven is the one player I agonize over more than any other. But I just can't vote for him.
You ask, "Do elite pitchers get traded that often?" The answer is clearly yes, and particularly in the late 1970s. Just look at the careers of Fergie Jenkins and Gaylord Perry for prime examples. Perry was traded as often as Blyleven in the late 1970s, and Fergie was traded just as often (three times) between 1973 and 1977.
Apparently your analysis of Blyleven ended in 1980. You seem to only be evaluating him on his performance in the 1970s, which you call "his prime." You must be doing so based on his age, because he was clearly a better pitcher in the 1980s being elected as an All-Star in 1985 and receiving CY Young votes for three seasons during the 80s. Does longevity mean nothing? Shouldn't it be worth noting that the same player receiving CY Young votes in 1973 was still receiving votes in 1989? That's extremely significant to his case. Oh yeah, and he was good enough to receive MVP votes in those years as well.
You act as though 287 wins is not worthy of the Hall. As you've noted he won those playing for bad teams, and in the late 1970s when he played for good teams he didn't win as much. Still, there are already about 20 pitchers (excluding relievers) in the Hall with less wins than Blyleven, and just about every non-active pitcher outside of Blyleven who is in the top-50 all-time in wins is already in the Hall. And the few that aren't cannot compare even reasonably in other categories to Blyleven.
I've respected your analysis for years, but your reasons for voting against Blyleven are extremely unconvincing.
Report any abuse or spam
GREAT post by rangeressary. He is right on.
TR, I respect you're opinion, buy you're basing your reasoning on Bert's popularity, and not his numbers. And is numbers are elite - this guy had one of the best curveballs baseball will ever see. But he is getting punished by baseball and the HOF voters becuase he did not play for any elite teams, win a bunch of awards, or play a bunch of postseason games. Cal Ripken made it into the HOF because he showed up to the ballpark every day and was a nice guy. All due respect to him, but as a player, he was not all that elite. Bert is getting snubbed becuase he didn't play for any of baseball's beloved teams like the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers, and yet he was an elite player. It's all about the politics when it comes to the HOF these days - which is why I agree with Roger Clemens on one thing: I don't give a rat's *** about the Hall of Fame anymore. And that's sad.
Report any abuse or spam
I'd like to make another point about the faults in this analysis. You point out the low win totals for Blyleven as evidence that he just wasn't elite.
I'd like to tell you the story of another famous pitcher who pitched in Arlington, who you helped vote into the Hall of Fame, and who you have called elite in the past: Nolan Ryan.
Ryan won more than fifteen games only eight times. That's the exact same number of seasons above fifteen wins as Blyleven, despite pitching for five more seasons than Blyleven. Ryan had a 162 game average of 13 wins and 12 losses. Blyleven had 14 wins for 12 losses. Ryan had a 3.19 ERA, but when compared to the rest of the league that only came to a 111 career ERA+. Blyleven had a 118 career ERA+ during much of the same period. Ryan was almost always at the top of the list in terms of K/9IP, but Blyleven was usually right behind him on those same lists. Of course, neither ever won a CY Young award.
So why is Blyleven excluded from the Hall while Ryan was a surefire first ballot HoFer? The answer is easy. Ryan had a fastball that fans loved to watch, and wanted to see in the All-Star Game, even though it could be argued that Blyleven's curve was every bit as dominating as Ryan's fastball even if it wasn't as exciting to watch.
So is the best reason to exclude one pitcher while allowing another simply that the fastball is more exciting than the curveball? If so, then the argument against Blyleven is very poor indeed.
Report any abuse or spam
Go rangeressary, Go lonestar.
I do not in any way, shape, or form envy HOF voters. Politics and geography seem to dominate the election, and have ruined the Hall for me. I don't get excited about it anymore.
At the end of the day, it's just another area where baseball has gotten it all wrong.
Add this to the long list.
Report any abuse or spam
There are compelling arguments for Blyleven and TR's reasoning against Blyleven are interesting. I think he should go into the Hall of Fame. But it is interesting that at least one voter has obviously put a lot of thought into this and takes it seriously. To me that is a small bit of evidence that it is not popularity or politics but honest belief. Not sure if all voters do the homework but you have to respect that one person did look at it hard.
Report any abuse or spam
If Blyleven had of pitched for the Dodgers, Red Sox or Yankees he would have gone in. These writers would have kept Carlton out if they could have. Both had similar demeanors with the media. Blyleven should have cultivated a relationship with the media. Alot of the marginal guys that have gotten in were allowed in because of this, hey we like this guy, he always talked to us. Drank beers with us. It is ridiculous. 300 wins used to be the bar, their won't be too many more of those guys, nor will their be over 3000 k's. Blyleven will go in when he is dead and gone as a member of a veteran committee. This is what is wrong with baseball and other things, when people get on their death beds, lets put him in. It is a joke. The guy should be in there, he earned it but he obviously wasn't a kissass! Good for him.
Report any abuse or spam
As for Clemens, won't this guy just go away? Why is he so angry. Hasn't he made enough money? I told yall along time ago that when the steriod story broke that it would be the pitchers who were the main guys. I have met Roger as a Texas EX, he is a miserable human being. It is funny how people try to hide things, then all of the sudden they are brought out into the open. I can't wait to see him in front of congres and listen to the double talk. This guy has way too much time on his hands and has no idea, how congress is going to eat him alive. Hey it doesn't matter Raffy perjured himself and they did nothing so why should Roger worry? Doesn't he U. S. Government have more things to deal with than weather some baseball player financially benefitted from injecting himself with performance enhancing substances? Where is the commissioner, doesn't he think that he should try and take control of this issue. Get control of the league guys. Get a testing program, move forward and when someone tests positive suspend their ***. The integrity of your game is being ruined. Yet no one does anything. It is a joke.
Report any abuse or spam
It would be interesting to look at all the players elected to the HOF in the past ten years. How many played for a team on the east or west coast? Conversely,during that same period, where did the next four vote getters play? Is there any crecdence to the argument of media bais toward players in big east or west coast teams.
Players like Blyleven and Morris seem to get "extra" scrutiny of their stats, where guys from the left or right coast seem to glide in.
Report any abuse or spam
1. No baseball player ever got into the Hall of Fame because he drank beer with writers. You need 75 percent of the vote. That's a high standard. The BBWAA's biggest sin is leaving guys out, not letting too many guys in. We don't vote in guys who are marginal. The Veterans Committee does that.
2. I have never heard of Bert Blyleven being a bad guy or being bad to the media. I have great respect for him. He certainly wasn't Steve Carlton. Or Rod Carew.
3. What do I care if a guy talks to the media or not. That really doesn't cross my mind when I consider Dale Murphy (who was great with the media) or Jim Rice. Sorry. Never does.
Report any abuse or spam
Here are the last 17 guys elected by the writers since 1997 and their PRIMARY market:
* Gossage - New York
* Gwynn - San Diego
* Ripken - Baltimore
* Boggs - Boston/NY
* Sandberg - Chicago
* Eckersley - Oakland
* Molitor - Milwaukee
* Carter - Montreal/NY
* Murray - Baltimore
* Smith - St. Louis
* Fisk - Boston/Chicago
* Perez - Cincinnati
* Brett - Kansas City
* Ryan - Texas/California
* Yount - Milwaukee
* Sutton - Los Angeles
* Niekro - Atlanta
You have guys from all over the country with the Heartland and Midwest represented quite well against the big media markets.
Being a New York guy certainly didn't help Don Mattingly
Report any abuse or spam
TR - love the posts and love seeing you get in on the comments....
-The whole East/West Coast bias isn't true except in the disporportional amount of ooverage the Yankees and Red Sox's get on ESPN and others....however I think any honest person would have to admit bias on the football side of things....how many cities have their own ESPN stationed football reporter (Ed Werder) to report on every happening???? Besides East Coast bias certainly isn't helping Jim Rice.
Going back to the Hamilton trade....Jim Callis of Baseball America in his mailbag that came out today definitely gave the Rangers the nod as far as who "won" the trade.....he noted Volquez's lack of a breaking ball and he thought it was telling that the pitching starved Rangers were willing to trade him as signs that he may not be destined for "ace" status.
Needless to say I wish the kid well and hope he wins 15 a year. Just thought ya'll would want to see a true non-partisan outsider opinion.
Report any abuse or spam
Let me express my surprise that someone said Nolan Ryan is not an elite pitcher and no one replied!
Only 23 pitchers have won 300 or more games. Ryan is tied for 14th on the list at 324.
Only 14 pitchers have over 3000 K's. Ryan ranks first.
He is the only pitcher with 5000+
Seven no-hitters.
Twelve one-hitters. (tied with Bob Feller for most all time)
Sixty-one shutouts (Seventh all time)
With the exception of the Miracle Mets (his first year) Nolan played for weak teams throughout his career.
If Nolan Ryan isn't an elite pitcher nobody is!
Report any abuse or spam
Hey r-wolff,
I think you missed the point of what I was saying, but you make a great point. I believe Ryan was elite, not even close to being borderline elite. He was greatness, and a clear first ballot Hall of Famer. My point was that Blyleven is so close to Ryan in many categories and better in some as well, so I don't see why he's not considered elite. My argument was that it's because his strikeout pitch wasn't as exciting to watch, and he wasn't in a big market...thus he didn't get All-Star votes and continues to just miss the Hall of Fame.
Here are the rankings for Blyleven in some of the categories that you mentioned:
Remember that Ryan pitched for 5 more years than Blyleven...
Ryan - 14th all-time in wins, 1st all-time in K's, 7th all-time in shutouts.
Blyleven - 26th all-time in wins, 5th all-time in K's, 9th all-time in shutouts.
So even in those glamour stats, Blyleven isn't that far behind Ryan. Now when you consider that there have been over 10,000 MLB pitchers, and over 50 Hall of Fame pitchers already (most of whom fall below Blyleven in many major categories), then you start to see the hypocrisy of the voters. How could only one of these pitchers who are so similar be considered an elite first ballot Hall of Famer, while the other struggles to get elected year after year?
This year, just like the past few, Blyleven just missed the Hall, and once again the arguments against his inclusion were in my opinion inadequate. And this is from guys such as TR who say, "The BBWAA's biggest sin is leaving guys out, not letting too many guys in." Is a guy who was clearly better than many pitchers who are already in and just as good as a few more, not good enough to be included despite the view that the BBWAA's biggest sin is not letting people in?
I know, it doesn't make sense to me either. Hopefully Blyleven will be included soon, and the pitcher who had the most deadly curveball in MLB history will get the recognition that his career earned!
Report any abuse or spam
I have mentioned it before in a previous post. I will repeat it here. There is a book by baseball statistian on the Hall of Fame entitled "the Politics of Glory" subtitle "How Baseball's Hall of Fame Really Works" that discusses players that are in the HOF. He argues that many are in that shouldn't be and others more deserving aren't in. It is an interesting book and of course his opinions can be argued. It is interesting also that he doesn't believe entry should be based only on statistics. More to rangerressary's liking would be that on page 181 of the book he rates Blyleven as worthy of the HOF vote.
Report any abuse or spam
The question is why do a bunch of writers, some of whom have degrees in journalism get the power of selecting a player? Just because someone covers a sport, doesn't necessarily mean that they know what they are talking about. I believe, Cosell said it best, "I never played the game." If statistics are to be the judge, then how is it that McGwire wasn't a first ballot hall of fame selection? They have no proof that McGwire ever tested positive, it is just rumors. Mantle was an admitted alcoholic, Cobb killed a man, so the suspicion that McGwire is enough to keep him out. What a joke. The bottom line is that their seems to be no consistent selection procedure. If Gossage deserves to go in after 9 years, and to me he should have went in on the first ballot, then how come Lee Smith isn't in? I do believe he had over 400 saves and was also one of the big closers of his time. They have all of these stupid rules, Sutter has to go in before Gossage, Smith has to go in after Gossage. How about creating some excitement for your sport, a franchise by letting more than 1 guy in at a time? Is Gossage really the only guy worthy of being there this year? The answer is no he isn't. If Goose is in then you have to take Smith, that is a no brainer. Peter Edward ROSE, an admitted gambler, a greenie user, Charlie Hustle, deserves to be in. I wonder how many writers would enjoy being scrutinized as they do others. Rumor has it alot of them enjoy similar things to MR. Rose. Ha Ha.
Report any abuse or spam
And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, likability is a factor, unless you are just head and shoulders above your peers as McGwire clearly was, no matter how it was done!
Report any abuse or spam
Ty Cobb was a pretty sad human being for most of his life but he didn't kill anyone.
Report any abuse or spam
I believe ccourtney is correct. It was Ty Cobb's mother that shot and killed his father.
Report any abuse or spam
Here's a late night tidbit for ya'll: according to Evan Grant and the Dallas Morning News, the Rangers are about to sign Jason Jennings:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/011108dnsporangsider.2a866b0.html
Report any abuse or spam
TR, trying to say the Twins teams he was on weren't bad is kind of puzzling to me, they were 240-238? That means they won .502 percent and lost at .4979 percent. That would be good for the Rangers but everyone else considers that not to be good. Blylevens winning percentage was higher than his teams at .514 and the losing percentage was lower at .485. 60 shutouts and over 3000 strikeouts is enough alone. Maybe he should just come out and get those 13 wins. And i agree if Sutton is in, then Blyleven has to be in. This is the logic right. Sutter is in, then Gossage, then Smith. HOW DOES DENNIS ECKERSLY GO INTO THE HALL OF FAME BEFORE RICH "GOOSE" GOSSAGE? Did i miss something? GOSSAGE was one of the first true relievers and made that position. Now getting back to what whoever said about Ryan not being elite. I believe that Ryan is elite, but he really sealed it with his time here with the Rangers two no hitters, 5000+ strikeouts and over 300 wins. If he walks from the Astros what would his career numbers have been as far as wins and strikeouts?
Report any abuse or spam
First off, i am a big Nolan fan. But if my memory serves me correctly, the knock on Ryan was that he was just slightly above a .500 pitcher. Here are his stats prior to joining the Rangers: 22 years of service with a record of 273 Wins-254 Losses for a .518 winning percentage and a .4819 losing rate, do those numbers look similar to someone we all know? (Can we say it all together BERT FREAKING BLYLEVEN). 2 20 win seasons, 2 19 win seasons and 1 17 win season, he was 19 games over .500 with 5 no-hitters and 4,795 strikeouts. If he retires then DO THE FREAKING WRITERS PUT HIM IN AS A FIRST BALLOT HALL OF FAMER? Now here is were Nolan sealed it in 5 years with the Rangers he won 51 more games and lost 38, earned 2 more no-hitters, struck out 919 more batters earned over 5000 k's, won over 300 games and added to his legend by punching Ventura's lights out. Having said all this the only mistake that Blyleven made was quitting too early. I think we see that he had a better record than Ryan at the time of his retirement. Ryans ability to remain a power pitcher over the long haul along with those 7 no no's are what put him in.
Report any abuse or spam
Lets rename the Rangers Starters: Millstone, Padcant, Goobered, Newman and Jenny. Is their really any difference between Jamey Wright and Jennings?
Report any abuse or spam
I think if you asked any of the hitters during any of the 7 no hitters, they would say that Nolan's curve was what really froze them up. Nolan always said that after his no no's, my curve was really breaking hard today. Anyways if you want to see Nolan, try Del Friscos in Ft. Worth its one of his favorite restaurants, around 1/31, thats his birthday and he does like to enjoy a Margarita or two.
Report any abuse or spam
Dennis Eckersley won 197 games and saved 390 games....dominant as both a starter and absoultely lights out as a closer.....
2,400 K's even though he was a closer for the last 10 years of his career.....100 CG's in 390 started....20 shutouts....had a much bigger impact than Gossage
Report any abuse or spam
Yeah Eckersley had a huge impact on...... Kirk Gibson, ha ha. Hey Courtney, are you the champion of the addicts or what. I have one word for Eckersley, ALCOHLIC put on the scap heap by the Red Sox who grew tired of his antics. Had to become a closer to save the career. Another feel good story! Give him a chance. Gossage was the first real closer, those who followed him benefited from his success, Eckersley was a starter for much of his career. The Yankees stomped all over Eckersley and his Red Sox during the late 70's. Thats why Mr. Rice aint in there, never won never could get past the Yankees.
Report any abuse or spam
Pretty sure 390 saves isn't just a ploy to save a career......and I don't think you would take away anything from Mariano Rivera's career because of Luis Gonzalez's walk off against him.....
You crack me up with this alchy stuff....how many guys in the 70's weren't using greenies and how many MLB players don't drink? You don't know....guess none of them should be allowed in the Hall or shoot, even allowed to play the game at all
Report any abuse or spam