ARTICLE: Hall of Fame Trial - Bert Blyleven

[Brian the Automator]

www.brewerfan.net/ViewArt...icleId=213

 

splitterfj takes a look into Bert Blyleven's career and his hall of fame credentials. Discussion of the article is definately encouraged.

 

Vote Here!

[splitterpfj]

I voted yes.

 

I see this is as a clear cut case of the voters being hung up on the number 300. Had Bert won 13 more games, no doubt he's in.

 

Splitting hairs over .64 wins per season is no way to judge a 20 year career.

 

All hail the king of the curveball.........and the hotfoot.

[bball123h2]

How the #5 all-time K man is not in the hall is a mystery to me... I voted yes

[plowjockey]

Yes. If this guy pitched for the Yankees, Mets or Dodgers, he'd have been in a long time ago. 5 and 1 record in playoffs and World Series makes up for the few wins short of 300.

[cirillo26]

Blyleven has been the number 1 snub on the ballot years (IMO). Many of his career number rank above many other HOFers. So he was short a few wins, big deal.

 

I was hoping he would be brought to these threads.

[BillScottCanRake]

I'm sort of undecided, mostly because I'm not even sure if I have any set criteria in my mind regarding what exactly a Hall of Famer is. However, I tend to think of HOFers as players who truly dominated the game while they played - not necessarily for their whole career, but at least for a portion of it. For me, that tends to eliminate a lot of very good players who were not the best at their position but still were very good.

 

My biggest concern with Bert is he doesn't seem to have dominated his era, but that could just be because I don't really remember him. I'll go back thru the numbers again, and take a look at his stats season by season, because I honestly don't remember as much about his as I'd like to. He sure as heck was consistent, tho, and played forever, which I think are a good starting point to a yes vote.

 

I'll need to think about it more, but I thought I'd throw my thoughts out for some discussion, and maybe someone can convince me one way or another.

[jwaltz]

I vote yes. Blyleven won 287 games while pitching for a ton of really crappy teams. If he would have pitched for more decent teams he would have won closer to 320 games or more. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all since he would already be in the Hall. The guy was also a true work horse. He averaged 245.3 innings per season.

 

Bert was among the top ten in WHIP eleven times. He was also among the top ten in ERA+ eleven times.

 

 

 

There may be a typo in the article. On the part where Todd compares Blyleven to his control group shouldn't CF be CG?

[brettac1]

This is as slam dunk as it gets for me. It's an absolute joke that he's not in - I guess he's not a "winner".

[pogokat]

I vote yes...he was very good..and really that's all..there are no glaring weaknesses in his career stats...less hits than innings pitched...tons more k's than walks...an era considerably lower than the leagues...

 

he's in

[splitterpfj]

jwaltz, yes that's a typo, should be CG

[dadofandrew]

Without a doubt, yes. The fact he isn't in is an embarassment to the writers.

[LouisEly]

I believe that you should never criticize someone for something that they can't control. "Wins" in baseball are something that you can't control. (That's like criticizing JDLR for giving up the winning run in the 10th inning when the Brewers offense scored one run the whole stinking game.) It is mathematically impossible to win a game as a pitcher if your team doesn't score any runs. I also believe in rewarding a great career over a long period of time over a short career that had 2-3 dominant seasons. (Example - another sport, but a Jerome Bettis I'd vote for but not a Terrell Davis; I'd back Andre Dawson before I'd vote for Jim Rice.)

 

The WHIP and ERA+ speak for themselves. With a lack of any other "obvious" candidates, I think this is the year Blyleven finally gets in. I vote yes.

[colbyjack]

I agree with most everyone else, I think it's a no-brainer that he should be in the HOF.

 

However, I am a sucker for wins, since 300 is a major milestone. While people quickly argue that he pitched for poor teams in Minnesota, one of my most favorite performances by a pitcher was Steve Carlton back in '74 (or was it '72?), when he went 27-10 or something like that, winning about 50% of the Phillies team victories that season. Of course that season may be more of an anomally than not, and Carlton was an easy first-ballot Hall of Famer, but it just seems like the truly great ones can take matters in their own hands. Laugh all you like, but like I said, I'm a sucker for wins when it comes to the best of the best.

[splitterpfj]

For those of you who think Blyleven is an obvious choice to make it in this year........he only got 40% of the vote last year, and finished behind Sutter, Rice, Gossage and Dawson.

 

I have no idea why the writers don't like Bert, but he's got a long way to go to hit 75%.

[igor67]

You can probably fudge some comparative statistics, but the most similar player to Bert is Eddie Murray. A really good player forever. Would Eddie be in the Hall of Fame if he had only 2987 hits? I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer would probably be know even if that's only what 2 or 3 less hits a year? Probably not and for somewhat similar silly reasoning. If greatness is defined as being vastly better than the norm than being a well above average pitcher for 20 years certainly qualifies and fits my definition of HOF.

[gregmag]

Oh yes. Hell, yes. This is the one I've been waiting for. He may not have dominated like Clemens, but he was a lot closer to that than to run-of-the-mill good pitcher territory -- Jack Morris, say. He was a staff ace and workhorse forever, and the only reason he isn't in is that he won 287 games in a freakish era that produced a bunch of 300-game winners.

 

Greg.

[bando1234]

Well here I go. This was not as clear cut of a case for me as it was everyone else.

 

All the tests(Black Ink, Red Ink(?), HOF Standards, ect) say he should be in. I compare him to Sutton & Niekro & I think very comparable so he should be in.I look at his wins & k's & think this guy should be in.

 

Then I sat down & really looked at his stats. 250 losses, 7 seasons with 15 or more losses & 3 seventeen loss seasons in a row. .534 winning percentage is good but not dominating.One time 20 game winner(although he did have 10 seasons with 15 wins or more) one time k leader. again good but not dominating.He also posted one actual bad season in the Homer dome so I dont really take that into account.

 

Then I thought of all the talk of Rafeal Palmerio(sp?)(pre steroid talk). And how he was never really dominent even though his numbers were very good if not excellent.Reminds me of Bert.

 

He pitched in a different era when pitch counts did not matter as much(if at all). He was either a gamer or had health on his side or a little of both.He pitched for a few above average teams & many average teams if not below average teams. Often he was the best picher on these teams.Many small market teams probally hut his chances.

 

My conclusion: I believe it takes a combination of health, stats, skill & some luck to make it in the Hall. Bert had some of it all. I vote yes to put him in.

 

As I said before he pitched in a different time. Even though they will not have the same stats as Bert,I think we will have to seriously take in considertion David Wells, Tom Glavine & Mike Mussina for hall consideration in the future.

[danzig6767]

I really feel bad for him.He has to know that he's more than deserving and yet he gets no respect.Then he has to sit back and see a guy like Perez get in while his hopes hang possibly by threads.

 

Getting elected to the HOF is such a big honor it has to bother players that get shafted regardless if they act like they arent that upset.

 

You see votes in these things like the HOF/MYP in not just baseball and you wonder what is the thinking or lack of it.Karl Malone MVP over Jordan.Gold Gloves to DH's.Perez in the Hall and Blyleven isn't.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

He should get in after Jim Kaat.

 

That said, the "Circle Me Burt" bit is as good as anything baseball has to offer.

 

Should be in for that alone.

 

Oh yeah, he pitched a little too didn't he?

[seattlebrew]

I vote yes

 

Not only on his great stats but he has one of the best Berman nickname's of all time

 

Bert "Be Home" Blyleven

[davego]

I would be willign to vote yes if in exchange I never had to hear him behind the mic again. Really, he belongs in the Hall, IMO.

[splitterpfj]

A classy story I remember about Bert-

 

When the Marlins were piecing together their spring roster for their first (93) season, they contacted Bert and told him they'd give him a shot to reach 300 wins if he was interested.

 

Knowing the two new teams meant new opportunity for a group of fringe AAA prospects, Bert said "No, I'm not going to go down there and take away a kid's dream of pitching in the majors."

 

He didn't have much left in his arm at that point, odds are he wouldn't have found the 13 wins he needed, but I still thought that was a great move on his part.

[reillymcshane]

Thanks for doing this one! I asked for this one because I, like people have suggested, feel Bert has gotten hosed over the years. So many people forget (or never knew) how good he really was. You hear his name and say, 'No way,' but then you look at the stats and realize how good he was - and he did it for quite a few bad teams - like a couple of people mentioned.

 

Here's a couple of articles supporting Blyleven's case:

 

Article

Article 2

[splitterpfj]

My pleasure Reilly.

 

As I said in the article, the biggest issue I have with this is the low vote total Blyleven has gotten. To me, he's a fairly quick yes vote, but last year he got 40% of the vote, nowhere near election.

 

Bert's going to need a real push to get in- it's as though the voters can't do math. When a guy pitches for 20 years, there's no guess work left, it's all there in the results........Bert's got 'em.

[brettac1]

He's really dominating in the poll, that's great to see.