*** Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 19th in wins. ***

and he's also seventh in losses since 1900, and eighth in HR allowed. Of the six pitchers since 1900 with more losses, only Eppa Rixey (often perceived as a mistaken HOF selection) had fewer wins than Blyleven. I can cherry-pick, too.

Blyleven's a borderline candidate because he has a lot of negatives as well as positives. To make Blyleven's HOF case, you really need to explain why the voters should ignore 250 losses and few CYA votes and All-Star Game appearances in favor of the positive numbers, not act as though only the positive numbers exist.

-- MWE

Granted he was elected 30+ years ago, but anyone that voted for Robin Roberts had better also be voting for Blyleven.... Blyleven had glossier K rates, Roberts had glossier win totals, but they both fell short of 300, both lost a pretty large number of games, and both gave up a ton of gopher balls.

Personally, I think what pushes Blyleven over the line into immortality is the fact that he used to wear a T-shirt that read "I love to fart". Such a man deserves enshrinement.

To make Blyleven's HOF case, you really need to explain why the voters should ignore 250 losses and few CYA votes and All-Star Game appearances in favor of the positive numbers, not act as though only the positive numbers exist.

I'll take a shot.

1) The losses - Everyone ahead of him on the career losses list is in the HOF except for Jack Powell, who pitched from 1897 to 1912. There is a clear precedent for inducting pitchers with a lot of career losses, and it makes plenty of sense. You have to pitch for a long time to rack up losses and to stay in the league long enough to do so, you have to pitch well.

2) Few CYA votes - He toiled in small markets and had his very best years for some lousy teams. Plus, we know CYA votes to be unreliable compared to other pitching quality metrics. Would you say Daisuke was better than Ervin Santana this year? Because he got more CYA votes.

3) ASG Appearances - I will play along and treat this like it matters. It's pretty simple. He was a much better post-ASB pitcher - 3.12 ERA vs. 3.47 in the first half over his career.

You can definitely cherry pick better than I can.

You cite losses as a negative but every pitcher other than Jack Powell with more losses than Bert Blyleven is also in the Hall of Fame. Four of the next five behind him are also in the HOF.

1. Cy Young+ 316
2. Pud Galvin+ 310
3. Nolan Ryan+ 292
4. Walter Johnson+ 279
5. Phil Niekro+ 274
6. Gaylord Perry+ 265
7. Don Sutton+ 256
8. Jack Powell 254
9. Eppa Rixey+* 251
10. Bert Blyleven 250
11. Bobby Mathews 248
12. Robin Roberts+ 245
Warren Spahn+* 245
14. Steve Carlton+* 244
Early Wynn+ 244

You also cite home runs as a negative but five of the seven pitchers who have allowed more home runs than Bert Blyleven are also in the Hall of Fame. Three of the next five behind him either are in the HOF or will be (in the case of Randy Johnson) five years after retirement.

1. Robin Roberts+ 505
2. Fergie Jenkins+ 484
3. Phil Niekro+ 482
4. Don Sutton+ 472
5. Jamie Moyer* 464
6. Frank Tanana* 448
7. Warren Spahn+* 434
8. Bert Blyleven 430
9. Steve Carlton+* 414
10. David Wells* 407
11. Gaylord Perry+ 399
12. Jim Kaat* 395
13. Randy Johnson* (44) 392

As for needing to "explain why the voters should ignore 250 losses and few CYA votes and All-Star Game appearances in favor of the positive numbers, not act as though only the positive numbers exist," I have done that many times.

Bert Blyleven For Hall of Fame: Answering the Naysayers

Answering the Naysayers (Part Two)

Yeah, Mike Emeigh, are you really serious? Losses, Cy Youngs, and All-Star appearances matter? Is that Joe Morgan or Murray Chass behind your keyboard?

Yes, I understand that Blyleven's Win Probability Added doesn't quite match what we'd expect from his ERA+*IP, but we're talking about a gap of 4-5 wins on a 90-win career. Blyleven is so far over the Hall standard--he's probably in the institution's top third--that quibbling over the timing of his runs allowed just obscures the point. That stuff matters with a true borderliner like Dave Stieb, where the gap between WPA and ERA+*IP can mean the difference between in and out. But BLYLEVEN? 5,000 IP at a 118 ERA+?? That's in the neighborhood of immortals like Steve Carlton (5200@115), and just one season behind a top-10-SP-of-all-time candidate like Warren Spahn (5250@118). I mean...get real...

Because of the way the CY voting is constructed, I'm not sure how much you can say about anybody who wasn't in the top 3 in any given year. If a league has 3 clear-cut 1-2-3's, and Bert is a valid 4th (at worst), well he isn't going to get very many votes at all. And if he is actually the 2nd-best, but is perceived as the 4th best...well you get the idea.

The main problem that I percieve is that you can't fight an emotional argument with numbers. Blyleven doesn't 'feel' like a Hall of Famer to a lot of writers, so repeatedly putting up statistic-based arguments is just hitting a screw with a hammer.

While I agree that the numbers-based arguments are persuasive and "should" be convincing, it seems that we also need anecdotal evidence of Bert's greatness to actually combat the problem. Can this type of argument be mounted for Bert?

> we also need anecdotal evidence of Bert's greatness

5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5 1 0 1 47.1 43 13 8 36

I think that makes up for any perceived regular season failings.

Yeah, Mike Emeigh, are you really serious? Losses, Cy Youngs, and All-Star appearances matter? Is that Joe Morgan or Murray Chass behind your keyboard?

Maybe not as much as more objective measurements and maybe not as much as some folks (mainly older) think. But I wouldn't completely dismiss them. This is one of the things that turns me off about post-Jamesian analysis.

I think the one-sentence summary of Blyleven's case is the following: "Bert Blyleven did more to prevent his opponents from scoring, for a longer period of time, than all but XX HoF-eligible major league pitchers in the last century." According to Baseball Prospectus, that number is a stunningly low five (Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, Grove, Seaver). I would subjectively add on Carlton, Spahn, Gibson, and Feller. But that is indubitably some rare air.

--Technical addendum: I am converting DERA and IP into wins above replacement via IP*(((20.25/(182.25+((DERA^2)*9)))-.0555)+.0115)

It will be interesting to see where Blyleven places once the Hall of Merit ranks its starting pitchers.

The Politics of Torre, what exactly are you suggesting that losses, Cy Young awards, and All-Star appearances contribute to our understanding of a player's on-field value that more sophisticated tools (be it WARP or WPA or what have you) do not?

To make Blyleven's HOF case, you really need to explain why the voters should ignore 250 losses and few CYA votes and All-Star Game appearances in favor of the positive numbers, not act as though only the positive numbers exist.

Ok, he had few all star game appearances because
1: he was a 2nd half pitcher, 150-140 3.47 in the 1st half, 137-110 3.12 in the 2nd half.
2: A few years he pitched extremely well in the 1st half- but started right before the all star break and was left off for that reason.

Cy Young votes:
He pitched when voters were REALLY obsessed with 20 wins
Let's cherry pick a year to look at, 1977, Blyleven went 14-12 2.72 (2nd in ERA+), no votes- why? because he went 14-12, why, because the Rangers, a team that scored 767 runs (4.73/ game), scored just 81 runs in Blyleven's 30 starts (2.7/g) 9 pitchers got Cy Votes that year- Blyleven was absolutely one of the 9 best pitchers that year- yet he got no votes.

250 losses, yes that's a lot- and yes he didn't quite pitch as well (W-L wise) considering the runs he was given- BUT his teams still cost him at least 20 wins/losses.

To make Blyleven's HOF case, you really need to explain why the voters should ignore 250 losses and few CYA votes and All-Star Game appearances in favor of the positive numbers

People need to stop treating "contemporary opinion" as additional evidence, as though it weren't informed by the statistical record. Given Jim Palmer's run support, a pitcher otherwise identical to Blyleven would've magically been transformed in the eyes of the people handing out those honors on the basis of his 21-12 record.

Maybe not as much as more objective measurements and maybe not as much as some folks (mainly older) think. But I wouldn't completely dismiss them. This is one of the things that turns me off about post-Jamesian analysis.

And the condescension isn't particularly appealing either, as far as I'm concerned.

Losses aren't a good thing. Piling up a lot of them does reflect a pitcher with ability. But a lot of losses (particularly if the number is fairly close to the number of wins) are not a positive marker in a guy's HOF case.

The main problem that I percieve is that you can't fight an emotional argument with numbers. Blyleven doesn't 'feel' like a Hall of Famer to a lot of writers

Neither did Sutton...

Actually it was WRT Sutton that I first read that a writer stated that certain player "didn't feel like" a HOFer.

During the 70s/80s I vaguely recall that Blyleven was regarded at least the equal of Sutton... but then Sutton (with better luck in teammates) cleared 300 by a healthy margin and Blyleven fell short. Since then the perception has shifted not only to "Sutton was better" to
"Sutton was always better" to "Sutton was always regarded as better".

Personally, my recollection was that Blyleven was almost always regarded at the time as a #1 starter, whereas Sutton was not.

Re No. 7, Blyleven has more than his share of qualitative/emotional/anecdotal evidence as well.

Consider...

Blyleven's curveball was considered the best of his era and one of the best ever. Rob Neyer, in The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, ranked his curve third all time behind Sandy Koufax and Mordecai Brown. Oh, and he had the ninth-best fastball during the 1970-74 period according to this same source. As highlighted on The Baseball Page, "Many players, including Johnny Bench, Reggie Jackson and Rod Carew, called it the toughest breaking pitch they ever faced."

"He was as good as there was for a long time. Bert is up there with the toughest four or five guys I faced in my career." — Hall of Fame third baseman George Brett.

People need to stop treating "contemporary opinion" as additional evidence, as though it weren't informed by the statistical record.

I'll consider contemporary opinion regarding matters such as fielding (though contemporary MSM opinion of Jeter gives me pause), where the stat record is not so clear (just as long as the contemporary opinion dopes not recite fielding %).

WRT hitting, I disregard contemporary opinion almost entirely.

SoSH U at work, maybe I am just being thickheaded. But clearly, losses are influenced by three factors: the quantity and quality of the guy's pitching, his run support, and his bullpen. Of those three, only the first is relevant for his Hall credentials, and the first can be measured much more directly (using everything from ERA+*IP to Win Probability Added, which takes into account the timing of a pitcher's run prevention). So why would we look at something that muddies the waters with the influence of a guy's teammates when we have better options at our disposal?

Rich, those are excellent examples. DL from MN also brought up his postseason record, it'd be great to add some color to those numbers as well.

Now, the opportunity is to present these to THE VOTERS. Paint a picture of Bert and use the numbers as strong support for the picture.

Leading with the #'s and laments of how 'these guys just don't get it' isn't going to get Bert in the Hall.

Rich, those are excellent examples. DL from MN also brought up his postseason record, it'd be great to add some color to those numbers as well.

I think that's it -

It seems pretty obvious that the voters simply are not going to be convinced by the numbers - someone that finds thinks like DERA, SNW, and ERA+ to be bunk dreamed up by human calculators simply isn't going to be swayed when you show them that Blyleven looks quite worthy measured by those metrics. You're fighting a losing battle - you first have to convince a fairly obstinate class of folks that those things have real merit, before you can even get into showing that Blyleven merits induction because of them.

The case for Blyleven would be better helped by highlighting less of the numbers, and more of the quotes like those from Brett.

But clearly, losses are influenced by three factors: the quantity and quality of the guy's pitching, his run support, and his bullpen.

Hold on a sec... How exactly is the bullpen a factor for a SP's losses?

Edit: Abd point b is strongly correlated to point a... other than that you're doing fine though...

I agree with 18 and 19 as they relate specifically to Blyleven, but the end-game is trying to convince voters of the selection criteria (which seems to me to be, pioneers/execs/media aside, the best baseball players).

Once you engage along these lines, well, what if Ken Griffey Jr. thinks Flash Gordon's hook was the best he ever saw? Does Gordon then merit consideration? And of course, this is exactly how Jim Rice and Jack Morris have credible cases. Rice was feared, Morris a bulldog.

The anecdotal helps Blyleven because it rounds the case out and addresses voters' objections. But longterm, it's diversionary.

SoSH U at work, maybe I am just being thickheaded. But clearly, losses are influenced by three factors: the quantity and quality of the guy's pitching, his run support, and his bullpen. Of those three, only the first is relevant for his Hall credentials, and the first can be measured much more directly (using everything from ERA+*IP to Win Probability Added, which takes into account the timing of a pitcher's run prevention). So why would we look at something that muddies the waters with the influence of a guy's teammates when we have better options at our disposal?

My beef isn't with anything you say here Dan (though I take exception to your condescending tone with Mike Emeigh, who deserves better), it's with Rich's list of the guys' with the most losses (and homers) and the number of HOFers therein, as if inclusion on either list is a positive. Losing a lot of games does nothing to bolster one's HOF case. Allowing a lot of homers does nothing to bolster a player's case. This is gray ink that must be overcome by other accomplishments, even if losses are subject to factors other than a pitcher's ability (as are HRs, to a lesser extent).

Hold on a sec... How exactly is the bullpen a factor for a SP's losses?

I'd guess that a strong bullpen can give a team a better chance to come back late in games, reducing the likelihood that a starting pitcher takes a loss, even when he leaves a game while his team is behind.

My beef isn't with anything you say here Dan (though I take exception to your condescending tone with Mike Emeigh, who deserves better), it's with Rich's list of the guys' with the most losses (and homers) and the number of HOFers therein, as if inclusion on either list is a positive.

We addressed objections put forth by Emeigh. Rich does not point to losses as though they enhance Blyleven's case, he (persuasively) discredits the notion that his high loss total disqualifies him in any way.

We addressed objections put forth by Emeigh. Rich does not point to losses as though they enhance Blyleven's case, he (persuasively) discredits the notion that his high loss total disqualifies him in any way.

Perhaps you could point out where Emeigh said his high loss total disqualifies him.

And you'd have to point out where Emeigh said high loss total disqualifies him.

Ok, I will back off that. Emeigh said, "you really need to explain why the voters should ignore 250 losses" and we took it a step further.

Don't ignore them. Account for them, look at everyone else's losses around him on the list, and then determine how much that should damage his candidacy.

What remains unstated is that for the first 10-12 years of his career Blyleven was NOT the "happy go lucky" guy as seen on the early days of ESPN in a Twins uniform. He could be testy, curt and rude. And guess what audience received its share of that persona?

Given the readership here I think only one guess is required.

Eddie Murray passed a milestone that "forced the hand" of the subset of writers who would have preferred to look the other way. Bert's failure to clear a perceived "magic number" gives folks the chance to indulge their lesser selves.

Just one of several surly moments from Bert's career:

In his last appearance with the Twins, Blyleven passed the 1,700-inning mark and got his 1,400th strikeout, but he was defeated 3-2 by the Angels and saluted the spectators with an unfond gesture as he left the mound. "I couldn't care less about the fans," he reportedly said afterward. "Maybe I should flip them every game and that would bring more fans to the park. Maybe that fat [censored] Griffith would have some more money to pay us with."

Don't ignore them. Account for them, look at everyone else's losses around him on the list, and then determine how much that should damage his candidacy.

And that's basically what I said.

No, you said Rich listed "the guys with the most losses (and homers) and the number of HOFers therein, as if inclusion on either list is a positive." He didn't do that. He addressed objections.

And for those of you still attempting to push this argument that Blyleven's ERA+ is somehow misleading because his teams didn't win as many games as they should have, please come off it. I have Win Probability Added data for every player-season since 1974. If I fill in pre-1974 years assuming an average distribution of a pitcher's runs allowed, and call replacement level a WPA of -2.3 per 200 IP, then here are the leaders in Win Probability Added above replacement from 1970 to 2007 (straight-line adjusting 1981/94/95, and including the pre-1970 years for pitchers who made the list just based on their 1970-07 performance):

1. Roger Clemens, 135.2
2. Greg Maddux, 115.8
3. Tom Seaver, 109.0
4. Randy Johnson, 101.6
5. Steve Carlton, 95.1
6. Bert Blyleven, 93.7
7. Gaylord Perry, 91.8
8. Nolan Ryan, 91.3
9. Don Sutton, 85.0
10. Pedro Martínez, 84.6
11. Phil Niekro, 83.8
12. Ferguson Jenkins, 82.8
13. Tom Glavine, 82.6
14. Mike Mussina, 80.8
15. John Smoltz*, 79.5 (this is incorrect--he's getting too much credit for his years as a closer, but the error is certainly within 5 wins)
16. Jim Palmer, 78.6* (needs to be discounted for defensive support)
17. Tommy John, 76.4
18. Curt Schilling, 76.1
19. Dennis Eckersley*, 71.4 (same error as Smoltz, but bigger)
20. Kevin Brown, 70.0

To the extent that Blyleven's teams didn't get the full benefit of his run prevention, it's a rounding error. Win Probability Added comes to precisely the same conclusion as an ERA+*IP analysis: that Blyleven is in a cluster with Carlton, Perry, and Ryan, in the upper echelon of Hall-worthy pitchers just below the greatest of immortals.

Ryan Jones got my point about the bullpen right. A team with a good 'pen is far more likely to get a starter off the hook for a loss than one with a bad one.

I spent some of the last hour or so trying to find news stories on Blyleven and all star selections or Cy Young votes. Didn't find anything, but I did find this from Chass. It looks like a proto-DIPS argument.

Losses are influenced by three factors: the quantity and quality of the guy's pitching, his run support, and his bullpen.

Fielding, too. Right?

Dan, I lurk at the HOM from time to time. But I've only read a fraction of the posts there. My apologies if you guys have rehashed over and over again the "contemporary opinion" argument. IF there's a thread that's a primer of sorts about the topic, I'd like to read it.

But clearly, losses are influenced by three factors: the quantity and quality of the guy's pitching, his run support, and his bullpen.

And a fourth factor - timing. A pitcher who shuts out a team when he's supported by five runs, and gives up three runs when he's supported by two, is going to have a worse won-lost record than a pitcher who does the reverse, and is in my book less valuable to his teams.

When evaluating starting pitchers for the Hall of Fame, I believe that the test of the very best pitchers should be how well they did in circumstances where others pitchers would be expected to fare poorly - in other words, when he ISN'T supported well. And the peer group for comparison IMO isn't the typical pitcher, but other potential HOF candidates. You don't compare Blyleven to the Mike Morgans of the world; you compare him to guys like Seaver and Hunter and Palmer and Jenkins and John and Kaat, etc. (I know Rich understands this; I'm not so sure other people do.)

One great thing about Retrosheet is that we now have the opportunity to look at how pitchers perform on a game-by-game basis. For example, we can now learn that Blyleven started 5106 innings in his career, of which he started 2227 with a lead (43.6%). When compared to other fairly recent Hall-of-Fame candidates from the modern era (I have a list of 24, starting with Gaylord Perry and ending with Pedro Martinez), we find that Blyleven's below average for that group; he should have had about another 100 leads when he started innings.

When Blyleven DID start an inning with a lead, however, the average lead he had was nearly 3 runs (2.97) - of the group of 24, only Jim Palmer and Mike Mussina had larger average leads when they held a lead. Tom Saver's average lead, for comparison purposes, was 2.80 runs (Seaver held leads about the same percentage of the time as did Blyleven).

Despite having a fairly large lead, on average, when compared to other HOF candidates, Blyleven had one of the higher percentage of "blown" leads in the group - innings in which he started with the lead, but gave it up. That happened 259 times, 11.6% of the time. Jack Morris and Phil Niekro were over 12%; Blyleven is in the next bunch with Tom Glavine, Gaylord Perry, Catfish Hunter, and David Cone (they are all about the same). The no-brainer HOFers - Maddux, Carlton, Seaver, Roger Clemens (well, he would have been before steroids), Palmer, Pedro - are all below 10.5%. The difference between Blyleven and Seaver, for example, given Blyleven's number of leads, is 42 innings - and note that Seaver was generally pitching with smaller leads than was Blyleven.

Blyleven's overall pattern of pitching with leads is most similar to Cone's, actually, on a percentage basis; the main difference between the two of them is that Cone had only about 60% of Blyleven's starts.

Now this by itself doesn't make or break Blyleven as a Hall-of-Famer; it's a data point, one among many. When I do game-level comparisons (and I've done a lot of them, and will do more) and when I look at how he pitched given various levels of support at various points of the game, Blyleven fares remarkably badly when compared to the no-doubt HOFers in the group, and fares relatively well only when he's compared against the guys on the edges.

The conclusion I draw is that this is a case where the W/L record IS telling us something that we need to investigate. Blyleven may very well have had a better record in different circumstances - but everything I see suggests that he should have had a better record in the circumstances in which he DID pitch, and the reasons why he did not have a better record are due as much to his own performance as they are to factors beyond his control. That takes him from the realm of "no doubt" to the realm of "borderline, probably out" for me.

-- MWE

Now this by itself doesn't make or break Blyleven as a Hall-of-Famer; it's a data point, one among many. When I do game-level comparisons (and I've done a lot of them, and will do more) and when I look at how he pitched given various levels of support at various points of the game, Blyleven fares remarkably badly when compared to the no-doubt HOFers in the group, and fares relatively well only when he's compared against the guys on the edges.

Your first statement contradicts your conclusion.

If it's just "a data point", and pretty much the only data point that places him in the company of "the guys on the edges", then isn't the rest of the data (like the numbers Rich and Concepcion point to) that places him among the all time greats enough to convince you that he belongs?

Mike Emeigh, unless I *completely* misunderstand you, the dynamics you are talking about are fully taken account of in Win Probability Added, which still shows Blyleven as a no-doubt-about-it all-time great (see my post #30 on this thread). From 1974 until retirement--so counting all but four of his seasons--Blyleven had a WPA of 22.34 and a WPA/LI of 26.00, which suggests that his poor "pitching to the score" cost him 3.6 wins. On a 90-win career, that is, I repeat, a rounding error.

No, you said Rich listed "the guys with the most losses (and homers) and the number of HOFers therein, as if inclusion on either list is a positive." He didn't do that. He addressed objections.

OK. I should have said Rich cited losses as a non-negative (or at least he phrased it that way). Of course, I wasn't referring to Rich's comments with the quote you posted, only that losses shouldn't be ignored, but evaluated as part of his candidacy.

The conclusion I draw is that this is a case where the W/L record IS telling us something that we need to investigate.

Sure, but hasn't it been investigated? Aud nauseum? Hell, Bill James devoted an article to the question in one of the THT annuals. It's been hashed out, over and over. Hasn't it? Is there anything left about this issue that remains unexplored?

Blyleven "should" have won a few more games than he did, and lost a few fewer. He is to some extent, perhaps a great extent, to blame for this. But I don't find it nearly persuasive that this issue outweighs the mountain of positives.

By the way, if you review articles in the 70's about Bert almot uniformly they discuss one or more of the following:

--that he should win more games than his record shows
--that he has a great curveball
--that he was basically a 2-pitch pitcher (fastball/curve)
--that he could/would lose late by hanging a curve, a curve that a batter had seen multiple times during the game

And if you asked Bert AT THE TIME about his W-L record he would say the bullpens stunk (which further endeared him to his teammates). But then Bert also badgered his managers about staying in the ballgames. His crossing of swords with Chuck Tanner was over Tanner pulling him early. At least early by Bert's opinion.

So Bert would have had fewer wins AND losses with different usage which would have made him an ever MORE borderline candidate. Does anything think a guy with a record of 257-220 would be getting this much attention?

Again, I think Bert belongs. But the hyperventilating as if this was some hidden superduperstar getting excluded is kind of silly. Alan Trammell and Ron Santo not being in the HOF are bigger issues in my mind than Blyleven sitting by the side of the road.....

he should have had about another 100 leads when he started innings.

And how many games/wins does that translate too, even with his 11.6% blown lead %?

Blyleven went 287-250
His IP and ERA+ suggest a 317-235 pitcher

His run support was below average, BUT he didn't pitch as well with the run support he did receive so 317-235 is not accurate.

He started 2227 innings and got credit for 287 wins
with 100 extra inning leads?
(that works out to 13 exra wins ouch)

He's "missing" approx 15 decisions, so let's make him 300-250
is that a HOFer (by established standards? 300-250, 3.31, 3701 Ks, 60 ShO, absolutely

--that he could/would lose late by hanging a curve, a curve that a batter had seen multiple times during the game

And if you asked Bert AT THE TIME about his W-L record he would say the bullpens stunk (which further endeared him to his teammates). But then Bert also badgered his managers about staying in the ballgames.

A Twinkie fan friend of mine said that Blyleven would often lose games late- he said Blyleven would start hanging the curve when tired, and everyone except the Twinkies' manager would see it...

Blyleven's overall pattern of pitching with leads is most similar to Cone's, actually, on a percentage basis; the main difference between the two of them is that Cone had only about 60% of Blyleven's starts.

David Cone with 67% more starts is a Hall of Famer. Not a no-question-about-it HOFer, but the big difference pointed out by the "Mussina is a rock-solid lock" camp was the IP. If Mussina is even close to a rock-solid lock, Cone would be.

Funny Blyleven anecdote in this column by Mr. Rebecca Lobo.

> Blyleven went 287-250

Add in the postseason and he's 292-251. With 243 complete games.

David Cone's a borderline case where I can see these arguments having merit. David Cone plus those extra starts is a no-doubt HOF pitcher.

The way to "seem" like a HoF pitcher lately is to be standing on the mound at the end (Sutter, Gossage, Eckersley). They haven't elected a starting pitcher since 1999. Call those 243 complete games "saves" and he's on the relief leaderboards also. "Bert was his own closer" is a great argument in his favor.

Contrast this quote from an article done years after Bert retired:

For most of his life Blyleven found joy in joy buzzers and put the whoop in whoopie cushions. He was baseball's merriest prankster

To when Bert was playing:

Teammate of the Week, that's good ol' Bert Blyleven. The Cleveland pitcher was charged with two earned runs in a 3-0 defeat in Baltimore last week when right-fielder George Vukovich and second baseman Tony Bernazard misplayed a ball to short right that fell safely and was ruled a hit. After being pulled for a reliever, Blyleven called the press box to argue the call and try to stick Vukovich, who had touched the ball, with an error to help his ERA. Nevertheless, the official scorer refused to change his decision. Blyleven called the American League offices in New York the next day, but that didn't do him any good either. Because no rule interpretation was involved, the officials there refused to intervene. That's the ol' team spirit, Bert.

HW, I am happy to concede that Blyleven was a total dick during his career. Is it bad that I still think he's a HOF'er?

Marc:

I AGREE that he belongs in the HOF. I have stated that a number of times.

What I have TRIED to get folks to understand is what is playing a role in the voting.

HW, I am happy to concede that Blyleven was a total dick during his career. Is it bad that I still think he's a HOF'er?

So does Harveys.

Edit: HW too quick for me. So I'll add, I do too.

By the way, in all of the BB discussions nobody addresses this basic element. The writers don't because it highlights their own petty behavior. The advocates don't because they don't see any writers WRITING about it.

But if you were THERE. If you were around baseball in the 70's and early 80's. Well, you knew that Bert was a bit of a jerk.

And the archives will point to it if you pay attention.........

I didn't mean to be flip. I thought by accounting for the voters' behavior you were in some way supporting it.

Sorry for the misread.

A pitcher who shuts out a team when he's supported by five runs, and gives up three runs when he's supported by two, is going to have a worse won-lost record than a pitcher who does the reverse, and is in my book less valuable to his teams.

This sounds an awful lot like an argument in favor of a belief in "pitching to the score".

For which there is no real evidence.

But if you were THERE. If you were around baseball in the 70's and early 80's. Well, you knew that Bert was a bit of a jerk.

I've read this before, and it's weird considering that he became pretty avuncular as a broadcaster in Minnesota.

Not that I'm doubting you, but it's a stark contrast to what his personality is now. Or is the personality he displays in the booth a put-on?

JRE:

Bert seemed to be a new guy after the move from Cleveland to Minnesota. He had a year period where he just seemed angry all the time. I think the return "home" rejuvenated him. Bert wasn't happy after leaving the Twins as at every stop he had some clash or experienced less success than he would have liked.

But that's just guessing.

One nite he recieved visits from three ghosts: Cy Young, Cy Old, and Cy Clone.

Just because he wouldn't share the post-game spread with Tiny Tim Laudner?

This sounds an awful lot like an argument in favor of a belief in "pitching to the score".

That's because it is...

actually there is some evidence that Blyleven pitched marginally worse in close games...

WRT Jack Morris, on whose behalf the pitching to the score argument is usually raised- there is no evidence that he pitched to the score- his Winning was better than the average 105 ERA+ pitcher due to his teammate's support.

Blyleven and Tommy John both belong in the Hall of Fame. Neither is an all-time great, both have flaws but they both had careers that are better than the Hall of the Very Good.

If Blyelven and John are out of Hall of Fame then there are at least 15-20 pitchers who are in that should be out.

If Blyelven and John are out of Hall of Fame then there are at least 15-20 pitchers who are in that should be out.

How many of these worse pitchers were voted in by the BBWAA, and how many were voted in by the VC?

and he's also seventh in losses since 1900, and eighth in HR allowed. Of the six pitchers since 1900 with more losses, only Eppa Rixey (often perceived as a mistaken HOF selection) had fewer wins than Blyleven.

As someone who just jumped into this thread right now, it kinda cracks me up that Mike's point was completely glossed over by those who responded to it. Sure, those guys with roughly as many or more losses than Blyleven are in the HoF ... almost all of them have more wins. I'm not raising the point for further debate (Mike violated my new BTF version of Godwin's Law for his callout for reasons why he should vote for Blyleven) just amused how everyone (including Mike in later posts!) ignored what he actually said. :-)

Mike, in your innings analysis ... I would guess that HR-prone pitchers (Blyleven, Jenkins, Roberts being obvious ones) would be more likely to surrender leads, especially bigger ones. Any evidence of that? Also, while not so much an issue during Blyleven's heyday, how are you defining "surrenders a lead" when relievers are involved? Charged runs?

One nite he received visits from three ghosts: Cy Young, Cy Old, and Cy Clone.

Ooh, so close. Try this:

Cy Young, Cy Old and Cy Onarah.

I've read this before, and it's weird considering that he became pretty avuncular as a broadcaster in Minnesota.

George Foreman Syndrome.

*** Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 19th in wins. ***

and he's also seventh in losses since 1900, and eighth in HR allowed. Of the six pitchers since 1900 with more losses, only Eppa Rixey (often perceived as a mistaken HOF selection) had fewer wins than Blyleven. I can cherry-pick, too.

I agree that Rich made a horrible case for Blyleven's induction. Just horrible. Rich did not put Blyleven's best two feet forward: ERA+ and innings.

Strikeouts, shutouts, and wins are bells and whistles, not an actual argument. The actual argument is very good run prevention over a very long career.

Strikeouts, shutouts, and wins are "And, oh, by the way" secondary points. They are not the meat of the argument. Strikeouts tell us something about how the runs were prevented, but they don't tell us how good Blyleven was at preventing runs. Shutouts say something about how good he was at his best, but the set of games is too small to be meaningful. Wins, too, are hugely problematic, not the least because they don't address the main argument of Blyleven's critics: that his winning percentage was not good enough.

It's no wonder Blyleven is having so much trouble getting in when his advocates aren't making the proper case for him.

Ray, I agree with you about shutouts. But strikeouts tell us something about how the runs were prevented, and they aren't polluted by defense like ERA is.

Cy Young, Cy Old and Cy Onarah.

My God, words cannot express how completely awesome that is.

Edit: Just to check, you know what "onara" means in Japanese, right?

I thought that it meant umpire, CFiJ.

I agree that Rich made a horrible case for Blyleven's induction. Just horrible. Rich did not put Blyleven's best two feet forward: ERA+ and innings.

Strikeouts and wins may not be as "right" as ERA+, but they're far more likely to convince a member of the BBWAA. If your case starts with ERA+, you're just going to make them roll their eyes and make those "Adjusted BLIP-BLOOP" jokes.

Blyleven's good enough that the case for him can be made entirely on the sportswriters' terms. A purer case can, of course, be made, but it's going to be less effective.

Strikeouts and wins may not be as "right" as ERA+, but they're far more likely to convince a member of the BBWAA.

And how's that working out for Blyleven, anyway?

Not too well.

If your case starts with ERA+, you're just going to make them roll their eyes and make those "Adjusted BLIP-BLOOP" jokes.

Some of them will indeed roll their eyes, and I'd say they're roughly the same voters who won't be convinced that it's a bad idea to focus on 20 win seasons or winning percentage.

Better to make the proper argument, and speak to the voters with half a brain rather than addressing the voters who are completely brain dead.

Blyleven's good enough that the case for him can be made entirely on the sportswriters' terms.

No, it can't be. The "sportswriters' terms" include winning percentage and 20 win seasons. Blyleven doesn't have those (other than the one 20-win season) so a case can't be made for him on those terms.

A purer case can, of course, be made, but it's going to be less effective.

Less effective than what? Blyleven has come up short over and over again in the voting.

All of which highlights an important point: the sportswriters can already see for themselves that Blyleven has a lot of strikeouts, shutouts, and wins. They don't need someone to highlight that for them. They're hung up on wining percentage and 20 win seasons, not on the lack of strikeouts and such. So the case Rich made above in response to Sullivan was absolutely useless. Totally, utterly, and completely.

And was _wrong_, since that's not why Blyleven should go in. He shouldn't go in on the basis that he threw hard or had a lot of strikeouts; this isn't a carnival. He should go in because he was good at *preventing runs*.

The problem is the voters don't understand that winning percentage and 20 win seasons are horrible ways to evaluate pitchers, in light of the other metrics that we have, now that it's 2008 instead of 1908. That's what the voters need explained to them. And they'll either get it or they won't. Some of them will, and those are the voters that the proper argument addresses.

Mike's point was completely glossed over by those who responded to it.

I didn't really have one in that comment; I just thought I'd have some fun cherry-picking numbers that would make Blyleven look bad. Blyleven ranks high in both positive and negative categories, which is why the decision is difficult for the MSM.

Mike, in your innings analysis ... I would guess that HR-prone pitchers (Blyleven, Jenkins, Roberts being obvious ones) would be more likely to surrender leads, especially bigger ones. Any evidence of that?

Jenkins was very good at holding leads (9.9% blown). Hunter (another guy who gave up HRs) was about the same as Blyleven. I didn't include Roberts in the gang of 24 because I don't have game event data for all of his career; in the data that I do have (1954-1966) he's pretty high, near 13% (worst of any of the HOF pitchers or reasonable candidates in my list).

Also, while not so much an issue during Blyleven's heyday, how are you defining "surrenders a lead" when relievers are involved? Charged runs?

It depends on what the situation was at the time the pitcher left the game. If the situation that the starter leaves the reliever is one in which the tying run would be likely to score more than 50% of the time, I debit the starter if the lead is blown in that situation even if the starter leaves with the lead. If the starter leaves with a one-run lead, a runner on first, and two out, and a reliever comes in and allows a 2-run HR, I wouldn't debit the starter for that one. In Blyleven's era - and particularly in his specific case, because he gave up a lot of his leads early in games - most starters blew their leads all by themselves.

The actual argument is very good run prevention over a very long career.

Run prevention by itself doesn't win games. A pitcher's job is not just to prevent runs from scoring; it's to prevent the other team from scoring as many or more runs as his team scores. Yes, the pitcher doesn't have control over how many runs his team scores. But the great pitchers, the HOF worthy ones - in my opinion - separate themselves from the pack by being absolute bulldogs once their teammates put them out there with a lead. If you look at the list of pitchers who made 300 or more starts from 1954 on (167 pitchers), 15 of them had blown lead percentages of 10% or lower. Of those 15, seven are in the HOF (Spahn, Jenkins, Seaver, Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, and Palmer), one more will certainly go (Pedro), and one more would be a lock if it weren't for 'roids (Clemens). The other six (FWIW) are Larry Dierker, Milt Pappas, Dave McNally, Jim Perry, Mel Stottlemyre, and Stan Bahnsen. Four of those six saw their starting careers come to an early end because of injury (although Bahnsen hung around as a reliever for several years). Jim Perry might very well have been a borderline HOF candidate himself if he'd been a starter throughout his entire career, and as we all know thanks to Bill James, Pappas's credentials are in many ways similar to those of Don Drysdale. Ryan is 17th, Whitey Ford 20th, Carlton 24th, Luis Tiant 26th, Randy Johnson 29th. Blyleven is in the 65-75 range, in a bunch with, among others, Hunter, Glavine, Kaat, Gaylord Perry, and Jim Bunning. Roberts, Niekro and Bunning (marginally; they're essentially tied) are the only actual HOF pitchers worse than Blyleven (well, Eckersley too, but he's not in there for being a starter); Morris and Smoltz are the only potential candidates worse than Blyleven.

FWIW, the more you look at Morris in this light, the worse he looks, too - best pitcher of the 80s or no.

And let me reiterate: When everyone on the list of candidates is good at preventing runs - and that is what we are talking about, or better be talking about, when evaluating HOF candidates - then such things as when the pitcher allowed (and didn't allow) runs matter. When a player like Blyleven has a reputation (I was there, and he did) as a pitcher who pitches just well enough to lose, then you'd better look at the reasons why he has that reputation and whether and to what extent that reputation is justified if you're doing due diligence on his candidacy for inclusion as one of the best pitchers ever. I know there's a huge (and justifiable) tendency for people here to be skeptical of "conventional wisdom", but it ain't always wrong.

-- MWE

George Foreman Syndrome.

I think he's annoying, but Bert Blyleven is much, much smarter than George Foreman.

Strikeouts and wins may not be as "right" as ERA+, but they're far more likely to convince a member of the BBWAA.

And how's that working out for Blyleven, anyway?

Not too well.

Actually, it is working pretty well. Blyleven's vote by years:

17.5%
14.1%
17.4%
23.5%
26.3%
29.2%
35.4%
40.9%
53.3%
47.7%
61.9%

There's a pattern there - and it's a good one. He needs to gain 13.1% more of the vote. Last year he added on 14.2%. He won't get it all this year as the ballot is a bit stronger, but he's finding himself in excellent position. As I noted in a column, an over-the-top surge propells men into Cooperstown. Aside from those still on the ballot, there is exactly ONE person in baseball history who received over 50% of the vote in a BBWAA election at least once and ultimately didn't get enshrined - Gil Hodges. Every single other person who has reached the status where Blyleven (and Rice & Dawson) currently finds himself made it in. Rice WILL be elected next month. Dawson will follow the succeeding year. Blyleven will either make it with Dawson or one year later.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some place we could go to see how Blyleven did in different run margins and game situationals? Some sort of reference site, possibly with an emphasis on baseball?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=blylebe01&year=00#situa-clutc

Blyleven BAA:
2 outs, RISP 2166 BF, .236/.325/.350/.676
Late & Close 2379 BF, .259/.317/.368/.684
Tie Game 6465 BF, .246/.304/.362/.666
Within 1 R 11920 BF, .248/.304/.363/.667
.
.
Margin > 4 R 1786 BF, .225/.269/.352/.621

He should go in because he was good at *preventing runs*.

The problem is the voters don't understand that winning percentage and 20 win seasons are horrible ways to evaluate pitchers, in light of the other metrics that we have, now that it's 2008 instead of 1908. That's what the voters need explained to them. And they'll either get it or they won't. Some of them will, and those are the voters that the proper argument addresses

.

I agree in part. However, I have also seen a lot of stuff--both here and in the MSM--about how Blyleven could not pitch to the score, was a choker, a guy who would win 10-2 and lose 3-2, etc. So, I think a lot of BBWAA guys would say that he did not "prevent runs" at the key times. I am assuming that your position is that the argument will work with those voters who don't already think that, but I think a lot of the no votes on BB are based on it, in that BB would have gone 301-237 instead of 287-250 if he could "pitch to the score." Bill James once wrote a long article comparing BB to other pitchers from that angle.

On a side note, does BB know who Lederer is and how much he has written about getting BB in the HoF? I would assume so by now.

And let me reiterate: When everyone on the list of candidates is good at preventing runs - and that is what we are talking about, or better be talking about, when evaluating HOF candidates - then such things as when the pitcher allowed (and didn't allow) runs matter. When a player like Blyleven has a reputation (I was there, and he did) as a pitcher who pitches just well enough to lose, then you'd better look at the reasons why he has that reputation and whether and to what extent that reputation is justified if you're doing due diligence on his candidacy for inclusion as one of the best pitchers ever. I know there's a huge (and justifiable) tendency for people here to be skeptical of "conventional wisdom", but it ain't always wrong.

My problem with this is that you have found a way in which Blyleven is like borderline Hall of Famers who didn't make it. Fine. But, if the best case you can make is that there is a way in which Blyleven is like borderline guys, and a bunch of ways in which he's like guys who are definitely in, you've made a very weak case against him. If Bert Blyleven were like guys who weren't in the Hall in most ways, it would be a viable argument. Being like them in one way isn't.

And how's that working out for Blyleven, anyway?

Not too well.

It's not like ERA+ hasn't been brought up before either. Hasn't that also worked out "not too well"?

Better to make the proper argument, and speak to the voters with half a brain rather than addressing the voters who are completely brain dead.

That's the point on which we disagree. You should pick the argument to appeal to the audience. Some voters are open to learning about better ways of measuring pitcher effectiveness, and some like to sit on their rocking chair on the porch and remember the good times. That latter group is the ones who need to be reminded about strikeouts and postseason performance. I don't think it's a good idea to just shrug and say, "Well, they're nitwits so we won't even bother with them."

No, it can't be. The "sportswriters' terms" include winning percentage and 20 win seasons. Blyleven doesn't have those (other than the one 20-win season) so a case can't be made for him on those terms.

Their terms also include strikeouts, shutouts, and wins.

All of which highlights an important point: the sportswriters can already see for themselves that Blyleven has a lot of strikeouts, shutouts, and wins. They don't need someone to highlight that for them. They're hung up on wining percentage and 20 win seasons, not on the lack of strikeouts and such. So the case Rich made above in response to Sullivan was absolutely useless. Totally, utterly, and completely.

Sportswriters (well, the kind of sportswriter we're talking about here) don't think only in terms of winning percentage and 20-win seasons. That's their case against. The case for can include lots of things. The goal is to frame the argument in a way that they understand and accept (which I guess us both talking about how dumb they are probably doesn't help with, so I'd ask Mr. Sullivan, if he's reading this, to ignore this post).

Anyway, the only one who can really say it was useless is Sullivan, right?

Just to check, you know what "onara" means in Japanese, right?

I thought that it meant umpire, CFiJ.

That's cold.

1) How you pitch can effect your run support.

2) Bert Blyleven picked the teams that he pitched for.

3) After the fact, who cares how well you pitched if you lost?

But the great pitchers, the HOF worthy ones - in my opinion - separate themselves from the pack by being absolute bulldogs once their teammates put them out there with a lead.

Mike,

Is there any evidence they actually pitched better with the lead?

I would assume the greatest pitchers would blow the fewest leads because they were the greatest pitchers. Why they would pitch better with a lead is not intuitive. Were they not trying their hardest with the game tied or behind by a run or two? That to me would be a knock on them, not something to their credit. It's like the clutch hitting argument. If you do better in clutch situations because you try harder or focus more, well dammit you should be doing it all the time.

I'd like to see some evidence that these top pitchers actually pitched better when +1 or +2 runs than -1 or -2 runs.

Blyleven's overall pattern of pitching with leads is most similar to Cone's, actually, on a percentage basis; the main difference between the two of them is that Cone had only about 60% of Blyleven's starts.

But Cone was better at preventing runs overall than Blyleven was. So if Blyleven is even in a heads-up matchup with Cone on this issue, then Blyleven was actually better than Cone at protecting leads, relative to their ability levels.

Does your study control for different quality of pitchers? For example, it would stand to reason that Pedro is one of the best all time at protecting a lead, given how good he was overall at preventing runs. But Blyleven's HOF case is one based on quality and quantity; so comparing him in a rate stat (percentage of blown leads) to pitchers who were much better than him at preventing runs in the first place wouldn't really yield anything useful. (I see there are several pitchers you listed that were worse than Blyleven at preventing runs on a per inning basis; that brings me to my next point.)

Mainly I think it's an open question whether you're measuring anything useful once you slice the run prevention data and then twist it based on game score. Are you measuring signal, or just noise at that point? The more times we slice the data, the bigger chance we're going to find some odd splits.

For example, slice Blyleven's career totals in two, based on first half and second half of the season. He has a 3.47 career ERA in the first half and a 3.12 career ERA in the second half. Can we conclude something useful from that -- did he really step up his ability level in the second half -- or are we just measuring noise?

Now split his data six ways, based on his monthly ERAs from April to September:
3.61
3.40
3.37
3.70
2.89
2.99

Are we measuring signal, or noise? Does Blyleven really crack under the pressure of July, when he posted a 3.70 career ERA? Did he really have the mental makeup to step up his performance in August and September? Or are these just random splits of the data?

Now split up the run prevention data based on month for all HOF or HOVG pitchers in the last half century. I'm sure Blyleven will rank higher than many of them in August and September ERA. Does that mean he had a greater ability than those pitchers to carry his team down the home stretch, or is it just noise?

Juan Marichal had a 3.13 ERA in September, to Blyleven's 2.99, and Marichal pitched in an easier run environment. Does that mean Blyleven had a greater ability than Marichal -- a tougher mental makeup -- to close out seasons?

It was a play on Brian O'Nora's name, but now that I think that I know what it mean's, it's apt for Blyleven.

A significant number of voters are voting for Morris and not Blyleven. I remember Morris as more of a jerk than Blyleven. Morris over Blyleven, Rice over Raines, there's a pattern here and it speaks not to the merits, but instead to the judges.

If the Hall of Fame changes, that will be great. Until it does, I'll look to the Hall of Merit discussions of the tough cases, because I know that at least they have gotten the easy ones right.

1) How you pitch can effect your run support.

Really, I've seen this assertion made, but have never seen ANYTHING to back it up other than vague anecdotes.

Run prevention by itself doesn't win games. A pitcher's job is not just to prevent runs from scoring; it's to prevent the other team from scoring as many or more runs as his team scores. Yes, the pitcher doesn't have control over how many runs his team scores. But the great pitchers, the HOF worthy ones - in my opinion - separate themselves from the pack by being absolute bulldogs once their teammates put them out there with a lead.

Hold that thought...

Blyleven is in the 65-75 range, in a bunch with, among others, Hunter, Glavine, Kaat, Gaylord Perry, and Jim Bunning. Roberts, Niekro and Bunning (marginally; they're essentially tied) are the only actual HOF pitchers worse than Blyleven (well, Eckersley too, but he's not in there for being a starter); Morris and Smoltz are the only potential candidates worse than Blyleven.

Ok, how many of Glavine, Gaylord Perry, Roberts, Niekro, Bunning, and Smoltz have you argued are not "HOF worthy" on this basis? Or, to put it in the same way you characterized Blyleven in post #32, how many of these pitchers have you argued "go from the realm of 'no doubt' to the realm of 'borderline, probably out' due to their performance in this area?

One thing about Bly, he worked under a handicap especially in the latter part of his career. Bly was a 4 man rotation guy. Being in a 5 man rotation screwed his game up,upsetting the rhythem and feel for his curve, and was probably, (well, was) a reason got kinda of pissy at times. Yea, Bly deserves it, and if he had stayed in a 4 man whole career, wouldn't be any question.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some place we could go to see how Blyleven did in different run margins and game situationals? Some sort of reference site, possibly with an emphasis on baseball?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=blylebe01&year=00#situa-clutc

Blyleven BAA:
2 outs, RISP 2166 BF, .236/.325/.350/.676
Late & Close 2379 BF, .259/.317/.368/.684
Tie Game 6465 BF, .246/.304/.362/.666
Within 1 R 11920 BF, .248/.304/.363/.667
.
.
Margin > 4 R 1786 BF, .225/.269/.352/.621

How dare you bring some hard-and-fast data to a thread otherwise filled with innuendo and hyperbole! That's my job!

You left out his baseline:

.248 .301 .367

So in close-and-late, Bert actually had a smaller isolated power (.109) than he did overall (.119)-so much for the "late inning gopher ball" theory. He did walk a few more people-WAG is that he was dodging the guys who could take him out of the park and pitching to the non-power hitters.

Here, to just choose one guy who will cruise in because of his Magic Milestones, are Glavine's same numbers, baseline, then C & L:

.257 .319 .378

.268 .321 .370

Average went up, walks down, iso down.

Okay, here's Palmer's:

.230 .294 .340

.244 .301 .365

Average and power prevention both took a hit, but nobody declaims against Palmer's clutchiness or intestinal fortitude (Earl Weaver maybe).

One more, I promise, Tom Terrific:

.226 .283 .342

.229 .289 .335

No significant difference.

BTW, kudos to whoever has been taking the time (and it must be mind-bogglingly huge) to calculate all these splits.

One thing about Bly, he worked under a handicap especially in the latter part of his career. Bly was a 4 man rotation guy. Being in a 5 man rotation screwed his game up,upsetting the rhythem and feel for his curve, and was probably, (well, was) a reason got kinda of pissy at times.

Bert was in a four-man rotation when he was at his all-time pissiest, April-May of 1980. The more likely reason he got kind of pissy at times was he was kind of a generic pain in the ass, at least in his younger days.

Bert was in a four-man rotation when he was at his all-time pissiest, April-May of 1980. The more likely reason he got kind of pissy at times was he was kind of a generic pain in the ass, at least in his younger days.

Additionally, from 85 to 87, he started 37, 36, and 37 games, which was good for first, third, and second in the league respectively. He even got 33 starts in 88, despite an ERA of 5.43 (ERA+ of 75) It's not like they weren't starting him on a highly regular basis, as the only seasons in which he had more starts that 37 was the stretch from 71 to 73.

A pitcher's job is not just to prevent runs from scoring; it's to prevent the other team from scoring as many or more runs as his team scores.

Is this a serious argument?

Additionally, from 85 to 87, he started 37, 36, and 37 games, which was good for first, third, and second in the league respectively. He even got 33 starts in 88, despite an ERA of 5.43 (ERA+ of 75) It's not like they weren't starting him on a highly regular basis, as the only seasons in which he had more starts that 37 was the stretch from 71 to 73.

Yes. In the transition from the 4-man to the 5-man rotation, we had the 5-day or 4.5-man rotation -- top pitchers generally getting 4 days rest between starts and the 5th starter skipped as often as possible. Your top 2-3 starters still got 36-37 starts generally and your #5 guy got about 20-25. Varying with injury/performance obviously. The 91 Braves were a classic example. Liebrandt (36), Smoltz (36), Avery (35) and Glavine (34) racked up 141 starts. The remaining 21 were split among 4 pitchers. The Braves were still doing this as late as 96.

86. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 06, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#3022171)

A pitcher's job is not just to prevent runs from scoring; it's to prevent the other team from scoring as many or more runs as his team scores.

Is this a serious argument?

I have all the respect in the world for Mike Emeigh and his knowledge of the game but I'm with Yeargh on this one. What gives?

I also like how "pitching to the score" can be used in either direction, to make a pitcher look better or worse. If a guy gets a ton of run support so he coasts and thusly puts up a higher era than otherwise, that's good pitching to the score. However, losing complete games 3-2 is bad pitching to the score.

I have all the respect in the world for Mike Emeigh and his knowledge of the game but I'm with Yeargh on this one. What gives?

I have exactly the same sentiment; in fact, I was very surprised to read Mike's comments in this thread, after expressing skepticism in the other thread that Mike would characterize Blyleven in the way that he has:

Kyle S.: I'm certainly not trying to make the case that Morris "knew how to win" - I think that's hogwash - but I do think there's something to the idea that Blyleven "knew how to lose." That's a commonly held opinion about him for folks who paid attention to his career as it was going on, like Harveys, Andy, Mike E, etc.

Ray: I can't imagine Mike E would agree to that as an accurate assessment of Blyleven, i.e., that Blyleven really "knew how to lose."