User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6858 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The fact that he wasn't really considered to be a star during his playing days is probably the best reason not to vote for Blyleven.
I still don't get the obsession with RBIs and pitcher wins. They're about the most useless stats out there, and yet they're the one that people pay the most attention to.
This is insane. We don't need to translate a player's season into yes/no binaries. I guess to do something different would violate the 3 sentence rule.
I do think All-Star selections means something. Just like MVP/CYA voting. Contemporaneous opinion has value. Obviously you can't place too much weight on it -- maybe Blyleven got screwed a couple times because another team needed a representative. Maybe he didn't get selected because he pitched right before the All-Star game (I seem to remember this occasionally being an issue when I was younger, am I crazy?). Maybe he had a tendency to pitch better in the 2nd half (no idea if true).
I have no problem with his looking for "big" years, whether represented by 20 wins or 100 RBI or whatever. But this isn't a bar argument, it's a HOF vote, and I'd hope he'd study it a little closer than that. As he acknowledges, the round numbers are arbitrary. Does he see any difference between 20 and 24, or only between 19 and 20? Does he account for it being more difficult to collect 100 RBI in 1970 than 2000?
Hmm, I intended this to be more of a defense of the guy than it turned out. Oh well.
I grew up during Morris hey day, and I never once recall thinking this, and the Tigers were my second favorite team. The bulk of his career the best pitchers were some combination of Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen, Frank Viola, Dave Stewart, Nolan Ryan and you could probably add Dave Stieb and Mike Scott in there. Jack Morris for the bulk of his career was an above average, solid pitcher, but I never thought he was among the three best.
I do think All-Star selections means something.
Absolutely agree. Now, Gold Gloves on the other hand....
Thus, he had a 109 ERA+ in 1979 and a 115+ in 1987, both of which are OK, but certainly not HoF level.
Conversely, his better years (1973 and 1974 with the Twins, 1977 with the Rangers - who surprisingly, had a pretty strong record, 1984 with Cleveland, 1985 with Cleveland and Minny and 1989 with the Angels) were years in which his teams weren't close to the playoffs....
I don't think I've read this point in the past (though that's probably me, since a lot has been written about Blyleven), but somehow I think that Blyleven's choice of teams are part of what drags him down (I wondered if Blyleven would have gotten to the playoffs with the current division and wild card alignment during the above years. 1977 would have the one year of the 6 quoted above where he would have, as Texas would have won the AL West in a 3 division system).
Somebody explain to me what I’m missing?????
You mean, aside from the plethora of more valid means of evaluating pitching performance than Cy Young Awards, All-Star appearances, and W-L record?
Part of that is that he was consistently a better second-half pitcher, with August, September, and October (small sample size) being his best months.
Career (April-July): 3.52 ERA, 3215 IP
Career (August-October): 2.94 ERA, 1755 IP
Looking at his career, he probably deserved an All-Star berth in at least 1984 and 1989, and possibly 1974 and 1977 (though he only made 30 starts), judging by year-end numbers.
---------------
I grew up during Morris hey day, and I never once recall thinking this, and the Tigers were my second favorite team. The bulk of his career the best pitchers were some combination of Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen, Frank Viola, Dave Stewart, Nolan Ryan and you could probably add Dave Stieb and Mike Scott in there.
Half those guys weren't in his league. Which leaves you with Clemens, Sabes, Viola, and Stieb, and then later Stewart and Ryan. In 1984, who would you have considered the top 3 pitchers in the league? Clemens and Saberhagen hadn't come along yet. '84 was Viola's 1st good season, so no one would have picked him as a top starter yet. So you have Stieb, maybe Guidry? LaMarr Hoyt? Mike Flanagan? I don't think there's any doubt Morris was considered one of the top AL pitchers at times. Whether it was "much of his career," ehhh. And as we all know, it's a weird in-between era which isn't represented by any all-time greats.
Morris was likely one of the top 3 starters in league from 1979-86. Other candidates would include Ron Guidry, Tommy John, Mike Boddicker, Blyleven and Dave Stieb. Only Stieb was clearly better, once you account for durability. By 1987, you've got Clemens, Saberhagen, Key, and Viola who are clearly better.
Morris was a smidge better than Blyleven during the 80s, but those were Jack's best years and Blyleven's best were in the 70s.
Because he was fortunate enough to have that one great day near the end of his career instead of near the beginning. what a nice story. This is why we wait several years for them to become eligible.
-his eyes went bad over the last couple of years, and he actually wore glasses to the plate.
-add another 3-4 average years and he surpasses Kaline numbers.
Fair enough -- I'm just talking about the perception at the time. Similarly, the perception at the time between 1981 and 1987 was that Morris, cumulatively, was one of the top 3 pitchers in the AL over that time. Selective endpoints, but he was well thought of over a pretty significant stretch of time.
Trying to be a contrarian here, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss Cy Youngs, All-Star appearances and W/L records so handedly, as those reflect the perception of that player at the time he was playing.
Mike Green points out something which may have a little more muscle behind than what we realize: Blyleven's better years were in the 1970s, not the 1980s.
When you add to the fact that he did not pitch in any of the big media markets until late in his career (LA) AND the 70s were before cable/ESPN (much less the internet), I'd hazard a guess that many writers simply did not see Blyleven as a top-tier pitcher, and find it baffling that he is being pushed as one (though I would think that anybody that goes into Baseball Reference should notice that (a) Blyleven accmulated some mighty large career numbers; and (b) Blyleven has some darn good ERA+s in years when his W/L was not that impressive).
(Not living in the U.S. in the 80s, I guess that one of the reasons why the André Dawson's of the world have more support than they sabermetrically deserve is because of his being on cable often. I'm not sure if there was a comparable cable super stations to WGN, WTBS or even WOR for AL franchises).
Well, here's a novel concept: How about you look at how good Blyleven was at preventing runs, and how many innings he provided for his teams?
How does Sullivan manage to get through an entire paragraph, after "spending more time on him each year than any other player," and not cite a single metric that does a good job of representing performance?
Wins? Winning percentage? Is Sullivan kidding?
5th all-time in strikeouts, every other eligible* pitcher in the top 17 is in the Hall. 9th all-time in shutouts, every other pitcher in the top 20 is in the Hall. 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in the postseason, including two world series titles, and led both championship teams in innings pitched.
* Unit, Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Schilling, Smoltz are in the top 17 and not yet eligible
But why is perception at the time relevant? Are you saying that Blyleven's performance record doesn't accurately represent his value?
I'm not a big fan of the type of case DCA made, actually. There are better metrics to cite before we get to strikeouts, shutouts, and postseason performance.
Thank effing god he got that part right! Assuming he'd doing the same this year...
Paraphasing out on Francesspool here from the other day on Jack Morris...
"I don't get the whole Jack Morris isn't a HOF. To me he was a first ballot guy. I bet, I bet...Jack Morris was 10 and 1 in the post season. He was soooo clutch in the BSBG, I bet his ERA was under 2.00. EDDIE, EDDIE...GIMME HIS NUMBERS!"
Goes on Diet Cokemercial break.
Waddles back.
Gets Morris printout.
"Wow! Not as good as I thought! Not really that good, but not bad...7 and 4 with a 3.80 ERA. BUT...OHHH THAT ONE GAME!!"
What I think kills him (in my mind) is that I can't really find any single year when he was THE best. Maybe just being in good (not elite) company at the time is enough - but if you look at those seasons, one (and usually two) other pitchers were clearly better than him each season... it was just never the same one or two guys.
I'm a big hall guy, though, so I'd hardly be upset seeing Morris gain entry. I'd rather see Jack get in than I would Jim Rice - but I'm much more of a career guy than I am a peak guy.
When you add to the fact that he did not pitch in any of the big media markets until late in his career (LA) AND the 70s were before cable/ESPN (much less the internet), I'd hazard a guess that many writers simply did not see Blyleven as a top-tier pitcher, and find it baffling that he is being pushed as one (though I would think that anybody that goes into Baseball Reference should notice that (a) Blyleven accmulated some mighty large career numbers; and (b) Blyleven has some darn good ERA+s in years when his W/L was not that impressive).
Well, yeah. If indeed it's the case that a BBWAA writer, entrusted with the HOF vote, is limiting his research to what he remembers watching on TV 30+ years ago, then he deserves every molecule of sh!t that gets dumped in his direction.
1. Blyleven Pitched 1146 More innings than Morris but gave up just 143 more ER
2. In other words, Blyleven had Morris's career and then pitched 5 more 1968 Bob Gibson seasons to top it off(1.12 E.R.A in 220+ IP)
3. Awesome post-season performer
Steve, they're human beings. Human beings develop their own prejudices and points of view over time.
Yes, Sullivan and others should do their research and reframe their way of looking at the world, but I'm not naive enough to think this is something that will happen easily (if at all).
In some ways, what you need is for the dinosaurs to retire, and a newer, younger generation of writers to come along who understand the issues.
(It'd be sort of nice if there were a Heritage Foundation or whatever sponsoring young, Sabermetrically inclined writers so that they can eventually take over from the ancien regime of non-Saber knowledgeable writers).
Certainly. But human beings are also self-aware, and when entrusted with a rare and privileged opportunity to cast a vote that will have lasting impact, it isn't unreasonable to ask of these human beings to at least make an effort to exercise due diligence, precisely because relying upon memories and vague images is so prone to error. If they don't, they deserve scorn, not sympathy.
That's the thing, there were guys who could put together a great season or two, but got hurt or just faded. Morris could consistently give you a good performance during an era when, for whatever reasons, other pitchers weren't able to sustain it. To me, being among the best pitchers of his time is his best argument for induction (the Concepcion/Hodges argument, I guess).
However, don't think that I sympathize with the Sullivans of the world for not adapting. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I don't "scorn" the Sullivans of the world for being old fogeys who have no idea of how to adapt to this brave new world that has opened up since they started making their way up their respective career ladders....
I agree with you, Steve. Though that's not Sullivan's problem, since he writes at the end of his piece:
I exchanged a few emails with Murray Chass a couple weeks ago over Mussina, and Chass admitted just that to me, after he chided me for citing ERA+ to him and cited the fact that he talks to more Hall of Fame voters than I do.
I don't think I'm violating a confidence here by printing a small portion of what Chass wrote to me; after all, there's nothing earth shattering here:
(A person may still not think Blyleven is HoF worthy, including, because they're a small HoF person. But at least they'd understand the issues).
Big in the playoffs
Top 10 strikeouts and shutouts
Great curve ball Sully
More than a few Murray Chass' brothers-in-arms will be retired, senile (and I say this objectively - I'm not wishing this on anyone) or dead by then.
Of course they would. They're the ones who have put him in the Top Two of Cy Young voting three times.
Big in the playoffs
Top 10 strikeouts and shutouts
Great curve ball Sully
plus, he was an innovator: he was born in the Netherlands; no one else ever thought of doing that before
I propose this as the Godwin's Law for baseball sites. :-)
Well, William of Orange did. He just didn't become a ballplayer.
How about this, had Bert Blyleven accumulated his career stats and toppled the Stuarts from the throne, does that get him into Cooperstown?
Year after year, you see that Blyleven was the best pitcher on his team by ERA and other stats, but had no better W-L record than several inferior starters. This was the case in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977 (he was 14-12 with a 2.72 ERA, Doyle Alexander was 17-11 with a 3.65), 1983 (he was 7-10 with a 3.91 ERA, Rick Sutcliffe was 17-11 with a 4.29)...and to a lesser extent the pattern happens in some other years. If he was mediocre, other mediocre pitchers had better records. If he was slightly below average, his record was really below average.
He lost double-digit games in 15 seasons, and won double-digit games in 17 seasons. His best won-loss records were 19-7, 17-5, 12-5, and then 11-7, 15-10, 14-10, 15-12, 20-17....
It just looks really odd for someone like this (someone who had exactly six seasons in which he won ?4 more games than he lost) to be a deserving Hall of Fame candidate. Even if it is true.
Sutton was local to me so that might color my view of the view of him too.
I don't think that too many people thought of Sutton as a Hall of Fame pitcher during his career. I think the same about Blyleven. Another pretty good comp would be Mussina. I now think all three are, and that Blyleven was vastly underrated while he was playing.
He had seasons of 19-9, 18-10, 19-9 right in a row at ages 27, 28 and 29, while Blyleven only had two seasons that look anything like that, and they were at ages 33 and 38, when the public opinion about him had already settled.
In the category of "seasons in which he won at least 4 more games than he lost", Blyleven had six, Sutton had eleven. 17-12, 19-9, 18-10, 19-9, 21-10, 14-8, 15-11, 13-5, 17-9, 15-10, 15-11.
I suspect there's a wide perception among voters that he was hanging to try to get to 300 wins -- and then didn't make it. I'm betting that really drives a lot of writers away.
Sutton was local to me so that might color my view of the view of him too.
I don't think that too many people thought of Sutton as a Hall of Fame pitcher during his career. I think the same about Blyleven. Another pretty good comp would be Mussina. I now think all three are, and that Blyleven was vastly underrated while he was playing.
I was a teenager during Blyleven's prime, and that's exactly my perception of it.
And it wasn't a compliment.
Hey, I think he's a HOF guy.
But I also believe in stating the facts.
one word: 300
(OK, maybe that's two words)
He supports Santo... but it's exactly this kind of thinking that's kept Santo out of the Hall.
There's a whole class of players... Santo, Grich, Trammel, Raines, Larkin, Bagwell, etc... who are the best at nothing but very good at everything, whose value can't be easily summed up in three sentences (or three big numbers). They have been... or will be... slighted by HoF voters who focus on records and milestones.
I don't know about that. Getting to 324 made a big difference for him, putting him 12th all-time when he retired.
And even with that, plus ranking in the Top 5 in career strikeouts when he called it quits and a decent career ERA, it still took him until the fifth ballot, primarily because of the perception Steve and King mentioned above - he was just never viewed as a great pitcher.
If he finished with a big old round number worth of career wynns, there's a decent chance Sutton never gets the Cooperstown call.
312 more career innings, in which he gave up 75 more runs.
71 more starts, 47 more wins, and 6 more losses.
And Sutton's career ERA is better than Blyleven's (3.26 to 3.31).
As a matter of fact, I'm now confused. There must have been a whole lot of difference between the NL and the AL in that period, for this to give Blyleven a career ERA+ ten points higher than Sutton's. What's going on here? Did Dodger Stadium have that much of an impact on stats, compared to all the various places Blyleven called home?
In other words, if the author would actually use some metrics that measure pitcher performance well, this is a no-brainer.
I have Blyleven at an RA+ equivalent record of 322-230 and Sutton an RA+ equivalent record of 320-267. Actually that difference is two or three very, very bad seasons: -2 wins and 47 losses. The career RA+ back-formed from that is 118 for Blyleven and 110 for Sutton, so using RA+ rather than ERA+ made very little difference with these two.
Ryan comes out at 326-273, which is pretty close to indistinguishable from Sutton.
Yes the environmental differences between them are that large. Try hitting the "neutralize stats" button on bb-ref. As for the actual W/L: those Dodger teams Sutton pitched for had some rather good offenses.
Yes, but according to bbref there have only been 40 guys with 4000+ career IP. 19th out of 40 isn't spectacular in and of itself.
Seriously. I'm not that old am I? I do struggle with Blyleven every year. Perhaps this may push me over the top. I will reveal my final ballot although I haven't received it in the mail yet. I do take this seriously - promise you that - even if I don't see it exactly as some of you do. At least not now.
There does seem to be many passionate people about Blyleven... which is good. (Not that it matters in this debate but he's an outstanding person). So be of good holiday cheer and I will consider all these extremely insightful info... (It's not the first time I have heard, read or considered the "metrics" but you know us old fogies." Feel free to e-mail me individually.
T.R. Sullivan
YES, in that era
Thanks for checking in, Mr. Sullivan
Our Hall of Merit at this site sees Rickey, Blyleven, Raines, McGwire and Trammell as no-brainers, in that order (setting McGwire's steroids aside, which you may not want to do).
We also elected Dawson, but consider him just about the worst player we elected (so probably better than maybe 30 Hall of Famers).
The only other name on this ballot that gets any significant support is Cone (15th last year, not likely to ever quite make it).
Sorry, Mr. Rice.
I'll give it a go:
Ron Santo is the 7th best 3B of all-time and was 3rd best when he retired.* He hit like a very good LF while playing gold glove defense at 3B. Despite suffering from a debilitating disease, he played virtually every game for 14 years.**
* 7th and 3rd are debatable but I'll assume the BBWAA ranks Brooks ahead of him. So I'm putting it as Mathews and Brooks when he retired and adding Schmidt, Brett, Boggs and some combo of Baker, AROD or Molitor (or some famous one I've forgotten). Anyway, unless there are secret Pie Traynor or Home Run Baker fans among the VC, I think they'd have a hard time arguing against those 3rd best and 7th best designations.
** Overcoming diabetes (a much more debilitating disease at the time) maybe shouldn't count but the BBWAA and VC would seem to be impressed by such things ... and if Puckett gets "extra credit" for his career-ending injury (as I think he did) I see no reason not to give Santo extra credit. But you can remove that clause if you want.
EDIT: oops, I forgot the 9 AS appearances
Except for a couple of '70s teams, they lived and died on pitching and defense. For most of his Dodgers career, the offense ranged from not good to middle-of-the-pack. Mostly "rather good" would have been a banner year.
Not once, in his entire career, was he top-3 in ERA.
His best showing is Top 5, and that was twice. In ERA+, he has a 4th and a 6th, so it wasn't park effects.
He was top 5 in K/9 twice (a 2nd and a 4th0
He was top 5 in Whip twice (a 4th and a 5th)
He pitched a lot of innings. In 10 of his 18 seasons, he was essentially a league average innings eater, at best. He has exactly one season above 130 ERA+
Top 3 for most of his career? Don't see it. No way. No how.
Sullivan's article contains this statement:
Okay, go to BB-REF. Look at the ERA+ column in the Leaderboard section (read the definition if you don't understand it). Compare Blyleven and Morris. Then explain why it is Morris who gets your vote. If that is too hard, just look at the ERA column.
* 7th and 3rd are debatable but I'll assume the BBWAA ranks Brooks ahead of him.
Hall of Merit positional ranking vote says 7th and 4th. We have Brooks behind him at 12th but we do have Jud Wilson from the Negro Leagues ahead of him.
You say "debatable" but (other than delving deeply into Negro League history) we're not going to try to talk you out of anything. We had Molitor 8th, one spot behind him, and ARod is a SS anyway, so the other one ahead of him for us is Baker. You didn't forget anyone important (other than Wilson, but that's a whole other conversation anyway.) Pie Traynor is not in the top 20 (might be in the top 30).
Then again, I can remember seeking Reggie's home run on TV in the All Star Game in Detroit, and people talked about it for days. Hell, I think it is even mentioned in his HOF plaque. One moment in time can last forever.
(It'd be sort of nice if there were a Heritage Foundation or whatever sponsoring young, Sabermetrically inclined writers so that they can eventually take over from the ancien regime of non-Saber knowledgeable writers).
And if you could talk the current Heritage Foundation into dumping its entire budget into such a project, it'd improve both the Hall of Fame and the rest of the world in one fell swoop.
I was a kid during Blyleven's prime, so my memory might be a little off, but I seem to remember the contemporary opinion of him being: Very good pitcher. Not great. Not in the Seaver/Carlton class, but in the, let's say, Don Sutton class.
My memory of his rep centers on two things: One of the greatest curve balls of all time, and a gopher ball pitcher supreme. This was always brought up whenever Blyleven's name was mentioned. People also noticed his mediocre W-L records, but they didn't start pointing that out until the last ten or so years of his career. Very good but not great indeed summarized it, and I don't remember anyone ever dreaming he'd be a Hall of Famer until very recently. Not that he shouldn't be, I might add, and cases such as his show the definite advantages of the newer types of statistics. Too bad so many voters don't even know what half of them are.
But I don't remember at any point in his career where he had the rep that Mussina had in his years in Baltimore and his first few years in New York. If you could transpose some of his better years into the 1970's he's the rough equivalent of Jim Palmer. Only the presence of all-time greats such as Pedro, Clemens and Randy keep his reputation down in the second tier of his era. There weren't any pitchers like those three in the AL of the 70's, certainly not Palmer, as good as he was.
I was referring more to the general impression of him as "very good, but not a Hall of Famer." I think I agree that Mussina in his prime was thought of as more of a stud than Sutton was in his prime.
Then again, a lot of people who never sniffed the Hall of Fame were thought of as more of a stud than Sutton contemporaneously. Like Andy Messersmith or Burt Hooton. The interesting thing about Sutton, I think, is that at no point in his Dodgers career, which was the main part of his career, was he thought of as the ace of his own staff. He was always the No. 2 guy. There was always a Koufax or Drysdale or Osteen or Downing or Messersmith or Hooton or I'm forgetting a couple who were thought of as the ace. Looking back, it might be -- I haven't looked -- that Sutton was indeed the best Dodgers pitcher some of those years. But he was never thought of as the No. 1 guy at the time. And I think that's the main thing that made people, including me, resist his Hall of Fame election.
I came around later, because as I've gotten older, I've learned to appreciate very good over a long time.
Really the gopher ball rep rests on two seasons: 1986 and 1987, when he served up 50 and 46 HR. Other than that, he never gave up more than 24 HR in a season. I've always wondered whether he had just started to lose something on his curveball and was throwing a lot of hanging curves during those years, before he learned to adjust. It wasn't the Dome, since he had a higher HR rate on the road in 1987.
Here's the killer quote...
Murray Chass (btw...his scrawl read: Founder/Columnist of Murray Chass.com. I laughed) "I would take Jack Morris over Rickey Henderson on the HOF ballot."
Hal Bodley..."I've always struggled with Jack Morris and never voted for him, but you've just convinced me Murray...I'm going to vote for Morris this year."
With that...I swear I saw a fellow with a scraggly beard and a BPro tucked under his arm leap out of the YES studio window.
I also think that when Mussina signed that Yankee contract he was seen by nearly everyone in baseball as a likely Hall of Famer, in spite of the competition of the Big Four of Pedro, Clemens, Johnson and Maddux. The fact that Mussina's now widely seen as a marginal HoF candidate simply reflects a similar consensus that while he put up respectable numbers for most of his Yankee years, they weren't quite what people had expected of him, looking down the road when he signed that contract.
Here's Mike Mussina to me: A somewhat more durable version of David Cone, with a roughly similar peak and a slightly less fragile arm. At their best, they were both about as good as they come, but neither of them ever could sustain their best on a consistent level the way those other four could.
I hate playing the gullible fish, but is that a true story? Is it really time to call for the butterfly net? Say it ain't so, Repo.
I was impressed that Mr. Sullivan actually came to thread, read it and very civilly commented on the points made by other posters. We could at least try to extend the same courtesy. I may be wrong, but I read your post as being incredibly condescending, which, in my mind, is totally uncalled for.
Mr. Sullivan, it's nice to see a writer who supports Alan Trammell's induction. In my mind he's probably better than half of the shortstop's already inducted. In inducting Trammell, the writer's would be selecting the best shortstop not to have made it in; until Larkin is on the ballot at least. Contrast that to Jim Rice who, if inducted, opens the door for very credible comparisons with a large group of players.
I understand that those who saw him play were sure that they were seeing a HoF player and so I understand sticking by that sentiment. However, it's a bit of a reality to see that he compares favorably with players like Moises Alou and Ellis Burks. The careers of these three are virtually indestingishable from each other and no one sees Alou or Burks as HoFers. Further, Albert Belle and Larry Walker amassed very similar counting stats and blow away Rice in rate stats [obp/slg/ops+].
I guess the question I have, Mr. Sullivan, is whether you are willing to vote for the large group of comparable players.
Also, I am very jealous that you get to vote players into the Hall. Very Jealous.
edit: apparently I am a slow typer and Srul Itza has no need of me to be his conscience
I was chasing my dog thru the room when this went down...but that's pretty close to what was said.
I don't think Chass has a vote tho.
Also...Jack Curry of the Times was the third man in the ring (Lorenz don't count because he's a full-blooded mannequin) and didn't say much.
Actually, it's not too shabby, because of those 40, 26 are in the Hall. Four others are Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, and Randy Johnson. 19th out of a group of 30 HoFers and HoF locks (31 including Blyleven, actually) is damn good, I'd say.
Sullivan was civil, yes.
But he didn't respond substantively to any comments. What _does_ Sullivan think of Blyleven's innings and ERA+ compared to other pitchers in and out of the HOF? Does Sullivan find no use in ERA+? Does he not see that wins and winning percentage are flawed statistics? He really didn't comment at all.
He's really under no obligation to answer any of them here Ray. He said he read the comments and would consider the information presented.
And yet, here's how Morris ranked in ERA+ in the AL in each of those 8 years:
1979 - 4th
1980 - not in top 10.
1981 - not in top 10.
1982 - not in top 10.
1983 - not in top 10.
1984 - not in top 10.
1985 - 10th
1986 - 6th
1987 - 8th
Does that really look like the 3rd best in the league in that span?
Thanks for the support. We've both forgotten Chipper Jones (who's not eligible for HoF yet of course). And I know almost nothing about Negro League players.
And yeah, I know neither Brooks nor especially Traynor ranks highly with us smart folks but I think it's safe to say the BBWAA considered Brooks better than Santo -- after all, he made the HoF pretty easily. And it's the BBWAA and VC I was thinking might debate the point.
Sullivan's coming by here may or may not change his mind, but it's very polite of him to come on and acknowledge that there are points of view on Blyleven other than his, and that he will take the comments of those of us here under consideration.
Would that some here would exercise the same type of moderation as Mr. Sullivan showed.
Which 'deserving' (at least in the minds of a significant number of fans and voters) type of player is more likely to get passed over:
1)the high peak, but short span of excellence type player
or
2)the very good for a long time?
I'm thinking the latter... The only examples I can think come up with for the former have other impediments (Dick Allen, Albert Belle) - most of the players in category one, fringe or no doubters (Puckett, Dean, Koufax, Klein, Kiner, etc) seem to make it in, even if some end up going the VC route.
The VGLT/category two types, though... the Ted Simmons, the Blylevens, the Santos, etc... seem to have a lot less luck impressing the voters.
I guess Neil Young was right - it's better to burn out, than to fade away.
I agree. He is under no obligation to respond here. And all we can ask is that voters consider all reasonable points of view. But I think a responsible voter would also publicly address, substantively, the arguments opposing his position. If not here (fine) then at least in a column.
EDIT: In fairness to Sullivan, he does appear to be doing this; after I wrote the above I checked my email and found that Sullivan had sent me a very friendly email laying out some of his arguments in more detail and inviting me to respond. That is to his credit, and I will of course respond in kind.
All arguments opposing his position, or only valid arguments opposing his position? If it's the former, then he gets to waste all his time dealing with crackpots. If it's only the latter, who gets to chose which arguments are valid?
Morris also had a no-hitter on national TV. It may've been the first one that I saw.
Had to respond to this... maybe you're missing some park effects -- most Rangers fans think they always have a great offense for the same reason. But check it out:
Year Dodgers Team OPS+1970 103
1971 108
1972 101
1973 102
1974 118
1975 103
1976 96
1977 108
1978 115
1979 110
Above average every year but one, often substantially so. Not exactly "living on pitching and defense". I didn't check the 80s.
Yeah - those 70s Dodger team had a pretty solid offensive infield. Only Cey was as good (and maybe a bit better) than his perceived reputation, but they still got very good production from the corners, above average production from Lopes at 2B -- and at least average production from Russell at SS (especially when you consider the 70s were the era of the Trillo/Patek type shortstops).
Toss Reggie Smith into the OF most seasons (plus, the occasional Baker, Monday, etc) - and really, the only real lineup hole was carrying Yeager's glove.
Wasn't that option part of the "prophecy" made of Alexander the Great? (though obviously not phrased like Rock & Roll lyrics).
Not true, one below average year (1976), every other year ranged from good to great.
The 1970 Dodgers were a great team, the failure to win a WS not withstanding.
You want a team that lived an died on pitching and defense? Try the Mets- from 1970-79 they reached a 100 OPS+ once, 1976. When the [pitching faltered, the 80-85 win team they'd been cratered to a 95-100 loss team.
Sutton's Houston teams were average offensively (effectively masked by the Astrodome). Sutton's Brewer team were great offensively one year and poor the next. His Oakland teams were good hitting teams.
Literally 85% of Sutton's career consisted of pitching for good hitting teams in pitcher's parks. He was as fortunate in his teams/teammates as a pitcher could be.
Not sure about prophecy, but I do recall Alexander is credited with saying something to that effect... better a short life filled with glory than a long life of obscurity or something like that.
<ducks>
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main