better a short life filled with glory than a long life of obscurity or something like that.

That's a depressing sentiment; at least for me. I tend toward the obscure part of the obscurity/glory spectrum and I guess my life isn't that short any more. Fortunately, there's always David Galenson to lift my spirits.

And yet, here's how Morris ranked in ERA+ in the AL in each of those 8 years:

1979 - 4th
1980 - 37th
1981 - 14th
1982 - 31st
1983 - 11th
1984 - 23rd
1985 - 10th
1986 - 6th
1987 - 8th

Does that really look like the 3rd best in the league in that span?

It may, if the guys ahead of him are always different guys, and he's pitching 250 IP a year. Over that period (1979-1987), with a minimum of 900 IP (100/year), Morris was 5th in the AL in ERA+ (out of 45 qualifiers). 2 of those ahead of him were mostly relievers. Morris easily had the most IP in the AL over that period. (The problems, as acknowledged above, are that this ignores any pitchers who spent part/all of that period in the NL, and that its an intergenerational era when one great group of pitchers is fading away and the next has yet to rise.)

better a short life filled with glory than a long life of obscurity or something like that.

I think Houseman said it best.

Houseman

Well, the Kurgan also had his nice take on the subject....

Morris easily had the most IP in the AL over that period. (The problems, as acknowledged above, are that this ignores any pitchers who spent part/all of that period in the NL, and that its an intergenerational era when one great group of pitchers is fading away and the next has yet to rise.)

Morris had the most innings in the majors from 1979 - 1987. His Hall-of-Fame case is a counting stat case, not a rate case, and it's a case relative to his peers, not relative to the alltime greats.

For example, from 1979 - 87, according to Lee Sinins' baseball encyclopedia, Morris was 3rd in the majors in runs saved above average (and 1st in innings pitched, so he'd likely look even better relative to replacement level). But his total isn't all that impressive (139) and the top 10 in RSAA over this time period is a weird list. It includes 3-1/2 relievers (Quiz #2, Tekulve, Gossage, Righetti), and it also includes three pitchers who didn't pitch for the first half of the time period - Gooden, Clemens, and Jimmy Key. Dave Stieb is 1st over these 9 years at 194, which is a LOT more than Morris - probably more than enough to make up for the difference in IP between the two of less than 200 IP.

Basically, the case for Jack Morris to be in the Hall of Fame is to argue that the 3rd-best pitcher of every generation deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, define generations as being all possible 8-10 year periods, and set a relatively low replacement level to give Morris the maximum benefit from his large innings totals.

Here is the (lengthy) reply I emailed to TR Sullivan:

Hi TR. Thanks for the polite reply, and for explaining your reasoning in more depth. I appreciate a HOF voter who is willing to engage in a well-intentioned discussion of the issues. I'll try to keep this as short as I can, but it will necessarily be a bit long since you seem to heavily weigh pitcher wins :-)

Let's start with the notion of wins for pitchers. I'm sure you are aware of the arguments against using wins (and W-L record) to evaluate pitchers: mainly that they are too heavily dependent on run support and bullpen support to be useful. I agree that over the course of a long career, wins become more representative of performance level, but significant caveats still apply, and other metrics still do a far better job of evaluating performance. (Then again, Blyleven _does_ have 287 career wins...)

But if one wants to examine why a pitcher didn't win 20 games in a particular season, I think a necessary component of that is for one to actually look at the box scores and determine whether a pitcher "deserved" his record or not.

You mention that Blyleven didn't win 20 games in 1977-80, despite pitching for teams that were pretty good. Let's examine that a little. It is true that his teams in 1977-1979 were very good. His 1980 team was a little over .500, so still good, even if not as good as the others.

Why didn't Blyleven win 20 games in any of those seasons? Why did he top out at 14 wins? Well, for one thing, in 1979 and 1980 he didn't do a very good job at preventing runs, so there is no reason why we should have expected him to win 20 games those two years. But he was excellent at preventing runs in 1977, and was quite good preventing runs in 1978. So perhaps he should have won 20 games in one of those two years. Let's examine his 1977 year, the one in which he was excellent at preventing runs, to see why he didn't win 20.

In 1977, pitching for a team that won 94 games, Blyleven went 14-12 with a 2.72 ERA in 234 innings (30 starts). I count the following games in which he pitched well but either got a loss or didn't get a win:

April 11: Blyleven leaves the game after pitching 9 innings and having allowed just 2 runs (1 earned). His team scores in the bottom of the 10th to win 3-2. Surely it was not his fault that he didn't get a win in this game; his offense didn't score for him.

May 13: Blyleven heads into the bottom of the 9th inning against the Royals, the game tied at 2. Again, his team hasn't scored for him. He gives up a pop fly to Wathan but the ball drops due to an error and Wathan reaches. He then walks Patek and gets White to ground back to the mound; the out is recorded at third. Nelson then singles in the winning run, which is unearned. His offense didn't score, and his defense let him down in the 9th. Blyleven gets the loss.

May 20: Another one-run loss, as Blyleven goes 9 innings giving up 4 runs -- granted his performance in this game was not great, but it was not terrible -- yet his team only scores 3 runs, and he "loses" 4-3.

May 25: Blyleven goes 7.2 innings giving up 3 runs. A quality start. But his team only scores 2 runs for him, and he picks up the loss.

June 4: Blyleven heads into the 10th inning, having given up just 2 runs. But -- yet again -- his team hasn't scored for him, and the game is tied at 2. Blyleven gives up a leadoff homer in the 10th to Lezcano. He then gets the next three hitters, striking out two, but his team doesn't score in the bottom of the 10th and he "loses" 3-2.

June 18: Blyleven again pitches into the 10th, having given up just ONE run. If the Rangers score just 2 runs over the first nine innings Blyleven picks up a win, but, alas, they have again scored just 1 run for him. Blyleven opens the 10th and goes flyball, single, single, double, to give up two runs and the lead. Knowles pitches horribly in relief of him and the Rangers lose 6-1. Blyleven picks up the loss.

July 31: Blyleven pitches 9 innings, giving up just 2 runs. But yet AGAIN the Rangers have only scored 2 runs for him. Devine relieves him with a scoreless 10th and the Rangers win it in the bottom of the 10th. No win for Blyleven.

All told, that is seven games that Blyleven pitched well enough to win, and, yet, did not get a win. His record in those seven games was 0-5 with two no decisions. Blyleven did not receive a single "cheap win" during that season. Every time he pitched poorly, he either got a loss or a no-decision (7 bad games, 5 losses, 2 NDs). Typically a pitcher who pitches poorly will pick up a handful of cheap wins anyway. Not Blyleven. Not that year.

In essence, you're holding 1977 against him for not winning 20 games, when it quite simply was not his fault that he didn't win 20 games. He had the second-best ERA in the league that year. Granted he only made 30 starts, which IS his fault and which cut against his ability to win 20 games; but it's NOT his fault that he didn't have a better W-L record.

You focus on the fact that he pitched for good teams in those years. But if one is going to lean heavily on a pitcher's W-L record in evaluating him, one needs to dig deeper than just looking at overall team quality, since a pitcher's run support can vary greatly from that of other starters even on the same team -- even if it's a good team, even if it's a good offense. One needs to look at the actual run support the pitcher received, the actual bullpen support he received, and, in fairness, at each game that the pitcher pitched to determine why he didn't receive a win in that precise game. Was the loss deserved, or not?

Wins for pitchers is an accounting metric. What is a pitcher's job? You may answer, to win games. But that's an end result; how does a pitcher go about doing that? What can a pitcher control, to a large degree? He can't control what the offense does, or what the bullpen does (or what his defense does, or luck, but we'll leave those out of this discussion). To a large degree, he can control how many runs he prevents. That's what ERA tries to measure -- but ERA is not adjusted for league and park.

A sensible way to evaluate pitchers, then, is to use ERA+ as a measure of quality. As you know, ERA+ is ERA adjusted for league and park, 100 being average. For comparison sake (just to calibrate our scale), Pedro has the best career ERA+ for a starter: 154. Clemens is at 143. Randy Johnson is at 137. Maddux, 132. Palmer, 126. Marichal, 123. Glavine, 118. Carlton and Jenkins, 115. Bunning, 114. Ryan, 111. Catfish, 104.

Blyleven? 118.

Quality, of course, isn't everything; quantity counts too, and innings does a good job of measuring that. Blyleven is 14th all time, with 4,970 innings. He pitched a huge amount of innings.

A quick and dirty way to measure a pitcher's career value is to simply look at his ERA+ and the number of innings he pitched. The Hall of Fame has elected pitchers with short careers but high peaks (Koufax), and pitchers with long careers but lower peaks (Sutton). Those are the standards the voting has established. If the pitcher has greater quality, he can get in with fewer innings; and if he has lesser quality, he can get in with more innings. Valid arguments can be made for a pitcher based on peak or based on career, or even something in between; it's a continuum.

Blyleven obviously wasn't as good as Koufax -- but Koufax wasn't able to pitch the huge number of innings that Blyleven was, either. Maddux WAS able to pitch the huge numbers of innings that Blyleven was -- and at a much higher quality than Blyleven -- but Greg Maddux is one of the five or ten best pitchers ever, and, as such, is not the standard for the Hall of Fame.

While Blyleven had some excellent years, he is essentially a career candidate as opposed to a peak one; that is, the combination of quality and quantity over his career is his argument for qualifying for the Hall of Fame.

How does Blyleven compare to some Hall of Famer pitchers from the last half century or so who pretty much everyone agrees on? I'll rank some of them by career ERA+:

Marichal: 123 ERA+, 3507 innings
Drysdale: 121 ERA+, 3432 innings
Spahn: 118 ERA+, 5243 innings
Blyleven: 118 ERA+, 4970 innings
Perry: 117 ERA+, 5350 innings
Carlton: 115 ERA+, 5217 innings
Jenkins: 115 ERA+, 4500 innings
Niekro: 115 ERA+, 5404 innings
Bunning: 114 ERA+, 3760 innings
Roberts: 113 ERA+, 4688 innings
Ryan: 111 ERA+, 5386 innings
Sutton: 108 ERA+, 5282 innings

Doesn't Blyleven compare well with that group, considering quality and quantity? I think that he does. Certainly he has more career value than Jenkins, Bunning, and Roberts -- he has a better ERA+ and more innings than all three of those pitchers.

I think he beats Sutton and Ryan on career value due to his higher quality as well, despite their higher innings totals; even if you disagree, certainly it's debatable, no?

Carlton and Niekro seem in the same ballpark as him; they pitched more innings but were slightly worse in terms of quality.

I'd put Perry and Spahn over him: more innings for Perry and Spahn at roughly the same quality.

Marichal and Drysdale were clearly better than Blyleven on quality, but, on the other hand, Blyleven pitched 1400 more innings than them. One can disagree as to who provided more career value in the end, but clearly the question is a reasonable one, no?

Blyleven was good at preventing runs, and pitched a ton of innings. To my mind, that's a Hall of Famer, by the standards that have been set.

We saw above that Blyleven matched up well with several reasonable Hall of Famers. That's one necessary argument for him. Another is that he is clearly better than the best class of pitchers who are not in the Hall. Let's take a quick look at him in comparison to two non-HOF pitchers whose case is also based on career value as opposed to peak:

Blyleven: 118 ERA+, 4970 innings
John: 110 ERA+, 4710 innings
Kaat: 107 ERA+, 4530 innings

As you can see, Blyleven is clearly better than them, both on quality and on quantity.

To me, Blyleven is clearly qualified for the Hall of Fame on the basis of his quality and quantity, by virtue of well established standards that the HOF voters have set.

Again, thanks for being accessible over email and willing to engage the issue further. Does any of this change your opinion of Blyleven at all, or, at the least, merit further consideration?

Ray

Trillo/Patek type shortstops

Trillo was a 2B, granted he hit more like a SS. Still, maybe you're thinking of DeJesus.

And Patek had a 79 OPS+ vs Russell's 82.

Well-written, Ray.

Ray is not the only one who has corresponded with me. Others have presented some pretty compelling arguments and I am seeing some things that "I was missing."

Actually I've really enjoyed this and there is a strong chance that Blyleven could be the big winner in all this (well, maybe just one more vote)

Look, I understand the privilege I have. Understand also that you really can't say definitively who you will voted for until the moment is at hand. But I am looking at all this stuff hard.

It's interesting that Blyleven is really the only one who has aroused such strong passion. No other player in my blog created such reaction.

I was warned that I better vote for Barry Larkin next year. I foresee that being the case but right now I'm focused on this ballot. Actually I'm focused on the winter meetings but that's another story.

Merry Christmas to all

Mr. Sullivan, I'd dare say that getting Blyleven elected is HoF priority No. 1 for BTF (and in more general terms, sabermetrically inclined) baseball fans.

Tim Raines may end up taking that position in the near future, but it's still too early in his HoF eligibility for that....

Ray, I appreciate the time you spent crafting your argument but I don't know that it makes Blyleven's case all that compellingly. For instance, you present a list of "tough losses" that Bert had in 1977. It could just as easily serve as fodder for his detractors: the idea, after all, is that Bert frequently pitched "just well enough to lose." Many of the games you list fall into that category - allowing 4 runs in 9 innings is exactly a league average performance - and so it's hard to say that this shows he was "hosed."

To counter the twenty wins thing, I'd point to someone like Maddux - he only won 20 games twice, yet no one doubts his inner circle-ness.

It's interesting that Blyleven is really the only one who has aroused such strong passion. No other player in my blog created such reaction.

You'll find a fair amount of passion in favor of Tim Raines as well. It's just that you already seem to be on board for that one. The key point: Rickey Henderson does not define the minimum standard for the Hall of Fame.

- and Alan Trammell.

- and with respect to McGwire (whom you support): whatever stand you take, just don't try to pretend that "he wasn't that good anyway."

It's interesting that Blyleven is really the only one who has aroused such strong passion. No other player in my blog created such reaction.

Basically, that's because (1) he's one of the best players not in the Hall, (2) he's got very little time left to be voted in, and (3) you weren't advocating his induction.

Looking over your ballot, I see (more or less) the following...

YES:
(Santo), Henderson, McGwire, Dawson, Morris, Trammell(?), Raines

NO:
Rice, Blyleven, Lee Smith, Parker, Dale Murphy, Mattingly, Tommy John(?), Baines

Of the above, Blyleven is easily your most controversial "no" vote (he's the best player of the ones you mention for whom you're not voting), especially contrasted your "yes" vote for Morris. If I had a ballot, I wouldn't vote for Dawson, but I find your voting for him less problematic than your voting for Morris or your not voting for Blyleven, and there are certainly plenty of statheads who would agree with your inclusion of Dawson (not to mention McGwire and Raines and Trammell... and Henderson and Santo, of course).

To counter the twenty wins thing, I'd point to someone like Maddux - he only won 20 games twice, yet no one doubts his inner circle-ness.

Maddux also won 19 games about fifteen times and four straight CYAs. Blyleven ain't Maddux.

Also, there were 87 20-win seasons during Blyleven's career, 54 during Maddux's. Everyone knows it's been tougher to win 20 in Maddux's time. (I thought the discrepancy was even greater.)

The choice of Morris over Blyleven is just brutal:

Career value
Blyleven: 118 ERA+, 4970 innings
Morris: 105 ERA+, 3824 innings

Peak value; best five ERA+ seasons

Blyleven 158
Blyleven 151
Blyleven 144
Blyleven 142
Blyleven 140
Morris 133
Morris 127
Morris 126
Morris 124
Morris 124

Blyleven's five best seasons beat Morris's best season. Blyleven has a 6th season -- a 134 ERA+ -- that is on par with Morris's best. That's on quality. And from eyeballing the innings totals, Blyleven loses absolutely nothing to Morris on quantity.

And I don't use this, but others do:

Postseason performance
Blyleven: 4-1, 2.47 ERA, 47 innings
Morris: 6-1, 3.80 ERA, 92 innings

Blyleven destroys Morris in all of these areas. I don't care about these next things for HOF purposes either, but we can add career wins, strikeouts, shutouts, and complete games to the list, for those who do.

So what in the hell is the case for Morris over Blyleven? 20 win seasons, winning percentage, and One Game in the postseason.

It's weak sauce.

"111. Kyle S at work Posted: December 05, 2008 at 04:09 PM (#3021732)
Ray, I appreciate the time you spent crafting your argument but I don't know that it makes Blyleven's case all that compellingly. For instance, you present a list of "tough losses" that Bert had in 1977. It could just as easily serve as fodder for his detractors: the idea, after all, is that Bert frequently pitched "just well enough to lose." "

Kyle,

It would only serve as fodder for detractors who don't understand the argument against accepting wins at face value. I hear folks (like my brother) argue in favor of Morris over Blyleven saying he knew how to win or he pitched just well enough to win. It doesn't make Morris a better pitcher that he was able to give up 6 runs when his offense scored 8. It doesn't make Blyleven a worse pitcher that he gave up 3 runs in 11 innings and his offense managed 2. Both of those arguments are predicated on a belief that a pitcher heads to the mound knowing how many runs his offense will scare and has a target for how many runs he could allow. Neither Morris nor Blyleven had that information.

Separately, some will argue that cheap wins and hard luck losses will even out over time. There is some truth to that comment. However, just because it tends to even out doesn't mean it does for all pitchers and definitely doesn't mean it will in a small sample size such as a season (or a half season in regards to All Star selection). Another example is Cliff Lee. He did pitch very, very well this season. However, he was also helped by an offense that seemed to score more in his starts (I'll have to check if he really had better support or I just imagined that) and a bullpen that only blew a few of his wins despite being a very weak bullpen on the season overall. If he pitched just as well but managed just 16 or 17 wins because of less run support or crappy bullpen it wouldn't mean he had pitched worse. It would have meant someone else would get the CY though.

So what in the hell is the case for Morris over Blyleven? 20 win seasons, winning percentage, and One Game in the postseason.

That is the case and to the MSM it is a compelling one.

Ray, I appreciate the time you spent crafting your argument but I don't know that it makes Blyleven's case all that compellingly. For instance, you present a list of "tough losses" that Bert had in 1977. It could just as easily serve as fodder for his detractors: the idea, after all, is that Bert frequently pitched "just well enough to lose." Many of the games you list fall into that category - allowing 4 runs in 9 innings is exactly a league average performance - and so it's hard to say that this shows he was "hosed."

But that portion of my response was not to make Blyleven's case for the HOF; it was to rebut an argument against him (the 20 wins thing).

But if one wants to assert, as you say, that he pitched "just well enough to lose," one has to actually show that, by sifting through his game logs to see why he ended up on the losing side of the ledger; one can't simply assert it and expect to be taken seriously.

Having studied Blyleven's 1977 game log myself, I can tell you that he had some great games in there. Like April 7:

Blyleven is locked in a pitching duel with Jim Palmer. After 9 innings, the game is tied 1-1. Palmer comes out for the top of the 10th and gives up a run. Blyleven comes back out for the bottom of the 10th, and shuts down the Orioles 1-2-3. That's 10 innings 1 run, and a 2-1 win for his team.

How the @#$! can it be said that Blyleven's makeup is to pitch "just well enough to lose" after that game?

His next start, April 11th, he goes 9 innings against the Indians and gives up just 2 runs (1 earned). Devine comes out for the top of the 10th and pitches a scoreless inning, and the Rangers win it in the bottom of the 10th. Blyleven does not get credited with the All Important W.

"Just well enough to lose"? How on earth? It just makes no sense.

To counter the twenty wins thing, I'd point to someone like Maddux - he only won 20 games twice, yet no one doubts his inner circle-ness.

And I prefer to point to the fact that wins is a horrible way to evaluate pitchers, and show my reasons why.

(Regardless, Maddux would likely have won 20 games in both strike years.)

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.

And was unbelievably durable. That is a big part of it. As his HOF plaque notes -- 23 years a pitcher, and he never missed a turn in the rotation.

Obama: you're preaching to the choir.

Bill and Ray: You guys should look up some of Chris Jaffe's work on the Run Support Index. I won't speak for Chris (who will probably read this thread and thus can speak for himself), but my recollection is that while Blyleven was to an extent "unlucky" in getting lower run support than average over a long career -- i.e. he pitched for some bad teams -- he also won many (something like ~20) fewer games than expected, given the runs that were actually scored for him.

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.

I think Bert pitched very well for a long time and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but I think he's a lot closer to the borderline than many people do. That's mostly just an expression of my idiosyncratic take on the HOF rather than anything else.

Many of the games you list fall into that category - allowing 4 runs in 9 innings is exactly a league average performance

Here are the games Ray listed, with IP and RA:


9 innings/2 runs
9 innings/3 runs, 2 earned
9 innings/4 runs
7.2 innings/3 runs
10 innings/3 runs
10 inningd/4 runs, but only 1 through 9
9 innings/2 runs

Yes, he did get hosed.

Bill and Ray: You guys should look up some of Chris Jaffe's work on the Run Support Index. I won't speak for Chris (who will probably read this thread and thus can speak for himself), but my recollection is that while Blyleven was to an extent "unlucky" in getting lower run support than average over a long career -- i.e. he pitched for some bad teams -- he also won many (something like ~20) fewer games than expected, given the runs that were actually scored for him.

Which is probably within noise range. And you're admitting, in the first part of that, that he was unlucky. If he's just 13 wins luckier, he has 300 and this nonsense of keeping him out of the HOF wouldn't exist.

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.

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."

And was unbelievably durable.

Never said he wasn't. If Morris was as durable as Sutton he might actually be borderliner HOFer imho (he's not close now as it is- imho of course).

Blyleven was durable too- over 4700 ip (not up to Sutton's 5282 of course- but the reason Sutton has a nicer W-L 324-256 than Blyleven (286-250) is their choice in teammates.

he also won many (something like ~20) fewer games than expected, given the runs that were actually scored for him.

Yes, but if Blyleven received league average support he would have been expected to win about 320- of he's 20 short of that he's at 300 and we still don't even have this debate.

If someone should have gone 21-9 with his league average run support, and should have gone 18-12 with his actual support- but "only" goes 17-13- that does not mean he's a 17-13 caliber pitcher, maybe he's 20-10 instead of 21-9.

Here's another data point that IMHO summarizes Blyleven's career. 1973 was probably his finest year: 325 innings of 158 ERA+ is a very, very strong performance. However, Blyleven's record was "only" 20-17 that year: a .540 winning percentage is good, but not stellar, especially for such an amazing season. He must have gotten hosed in no decisions, right? Not exactly. He melted down in the late innings twice for no decisions (the Twins won one of these and lost the other). There was only one game in which he didn't get a decision that he probably deserved a W (9 IP of 1 run ball). Well, he must have been dragged down by a bad offense, right? Nope - the 1973 Twins were second in the AL in both OBP and SLG, and finished with a 104 OPS+. He also had three above-average relievers behind him, but as he only had 3 NDs out of 40 starts, this wasn't an issue.

After spending 30 minutes at the micro level, it looks like he did get below average offensive performance from his team that year. But even including that, he still underwhelmed. Check it:

The 1973 Twins scored 4.56 runs per game, but only 3.88 in Blyleven starts. HOWEVER, Blyleven's RA when the Twins scored 0-3 runs was 3.23; when the Twins scored 4 or more runs, it was 2.28. You would expect, all else equal, the OPPOSITE to be true: in games where the Twins score more runs, they are more likely to be ahead in late innings, meaning fewer chances for 8 inning CGs (and one less opportunity to allow runs); also, you'd expect games where the Twins score 0-3 runs to be in bigger, lower-scoring ballparks, and hence Blyleven to allow fewer runs in those games.

IMHO, 1973 is Blyleven in a nutshell. A very talented pitcher who was somewhat screwed by his team but who somehow made things harder on himself.

To put the above post in a simpler context: given the Twins average actual run support in 1973 (4.56) and Blyleven's actual runs allowed (3.01), the Twins should have had a .681 winning percentage. However, they were particularly bad at offense for Blyleven, and only scored 3.88 runs per game for him. Thus, they still should have had a .614 winning percentage in his games. The actual number was .550.

In case I haven't said it enough, I think Blyleven should be in the HOF. The only point I'm trying to make is that not only do people who witnessed his career allege that he seemed to "let his team down" too frequently, there is a case in the data to be made for this! However, it is possible for this to be the case and for the player to nevertheless be a Hall of Famer. This is how I think of Bert.

Yes, but if Blyleven received league average support he would have been expected to win about 320- of he's 20 short of that he's at 300 and we still don't even have this debate.

I think this is right. He becomes something like Tom Glavine without the hardware, which is not all that far from the borderline but in. That's how I view Bert. He certainly deserves to go in before Jack Morris or Lee Smith or Jim Rice.

I think he's a lot closer to the borderline than many people do.

***

He becomes something like Tom Glavine without the hardware, which is not all that far from the borderline but in.

That is just dead wrong. Even without the hardware, Glavine is still nowhere near the borderline.


Blyleven is obviously not "Inner Circle".

Without all the niggling (and, considered by many posters here, irrelevants) "data points" Kyle raises, though, Blyleven would easily fit within the next tier of truly excellent pitchers who are just outside the Inner Circle.

But even if we were to credit all the so-called "data points" as having some validity, that would still put Blyleven well within the mainstream of Hall of Fame pitchers -- and well north of the "border line".

To put the above post in a simpler context: given the Twins average actual run support in 1973 (4.56) and Blyleven's actual runs allowed (3.01), the Twins should have had a .681 winning percentage. However, they were particularly bad at offense for Blyleven, and only scored 3.88 runs per game for him. Thus, they still should have had a .614 winning percentage in his games. The actual number was .550.

Which means roughly that had they given him league average support he would have gone .610 or 23-14 that year.

Great thread, and major props to Ray especially for all the digging into the details of Blyleven's game logs, which can often get lost amidst the season totals. This is evidently a real labor of devotion to baseball justice on Ray's part, and it shows. Perhaps one day he'll devote that same level of research and insight to politics. (smile)

Which means roughly that had they given him league average support he would have gone .610 or 23-14 that year.

In the Maddux thread, I posted it as 24-12. It was, easily, his best year.

OCF - I think the difference between 24-12 and 23-14 is what I was talking about above (in other words, 24-12 assumes the delta between his actual record and what his record "should have been" was purely the Twins offense, and that's not the case). In any event, obviously both are fine seasons. It's a shame the Twins didn't score more runs for him, and a shame that for whatever reason he pitched better when they did.

Bert belongs in the HOF and he'll probably get there this year.

I'm probably more "in the middle" here on a DiPerna/Sullivan discussion than anyone else on BTF in the sense that I have walked a mile or more in both shoes, in many respects.

There are extreme times in life when civility is insufficient.

And then there are all the other times, like, you know, Hall of Fame votes.

Kudos to both.

As a new member here, it is refreshing to see a baseball writer like Mr. Sullivan explain his vote to us. As far as any of you know, do any other BBWAA members frequent this site?

The only point I'm trying to make is that not only do people who witnessed his career allege that he seemed to "let his team down" too frequently, there is a case in the data to be made for this!

The data suggests he was unlucky, with regards to run support, both in total raw numbers, as well as in their distribution. Thus his rather poor W/L% relative to his apparent effectiveness (ERA+).

Let me ask something: what else would a pitcher of his apparent bad luck look like, other than as someone who pitches just well enough to lose?

Saying that "yes he was unlucky, but look and you'll see a guy who pitched just well enough to lose" seems very much to me to be seeing nothing different from the rest of us, just applying a different judgment to what is seen--bad luck vs bad emotional makeup, or whatever one wants to call it if someone were to really pitch just well enough to lose. And that judgment, of course, is what's being argued here, was he someone who pitched well enough to lose, or was he just unlucky? We already know he didn't win as many games as one would expect.

Let me ask something: what else would a pitcher of his apparent bad luck look like, other than as someone who pitches just well enough to lose?

I don't think I'm entirely following you here, but wouldn't the portrait of a pitcher who pitched just well enough to lose include that pitcher giving up the losing run or runs out of proportion to what you'd expect given his ERA? I mean that in this way: Blyleven's up, say, 4-3 going into the eighth. He gives up a run in the eighth and a run in the ninth, and loses. His ERA in those key innings are out of proportion to his seasonal ERA, therefore he found a way to lose by not pitching to his ability when the win was there, pretty much, for the taking. In other words, to perhaps oversimplify, how did Bert perform in high leverage situations? Was his ERA in high leverage situations worse than it was in low leverage situations? When he had the lead in the sixth, or seventh, or eighth, or ninth innings, did he win as often as he should have, given his ERA, and given the number of runs we could expect his team to score? Did they in fact, on average, score those runs? And so on. Those are some of the questions the answers to which would probably nudge us closer to the truth.

As a new member here, it is refreshing to see a baseball writer like Mr. Sullivan explain his vote to us. As far as any of you know, do any other BBWAA members frequent this site?

I'm not sure how many are BBWAA members, but here's a list of some sports journalism celebrities.

ark, I think you're right but I don't have the answers. From 20,000 feet, showing that he pitched better the more runs his team scored seems to indicate that, but it could have been that the runs he allowed were in low leverage situations. I just don't know. I could do a game-by-game study like Ray, but a) I'm not as dedicated as he is, and b) even if it looks like I'm right, it won't change my opinion of the man vis-a-vis his HOF worthiness, so why bother?

Hopefully he gets elected this year and Rice doesn't (fat chance, I know).

I don't know if anyone has done this. But it would be interesting to see what is the variance in W-L record compared to the RA+ W-L records for pitchers who have tossed more than 4000 innings. Intuitively, one would think that over that sample size, it should even out,and the variance shouldn't be that high. ( Actually a request for OCF to do this, as he seems to have the RA+ W-L records handy ). I want to see how many standard deviations Blyleven was away from his expected record.

In other words, to perhaps oversimplify, how did Bert perform in high leverage situations?

Wasn't that question already answered here? [Rummage] Seems we have two different Blyleven threads: here ya go.

Baseline

.248 .301 .367

Close & Late

.259 .317 .368

His average and walks ticked up a bit, power however was down. Ratio of runs to PA is about the same (if significant-not sure how they figger that). I also pointed out that Jim Palmer was even less impressive in such situations, but nobody has ever dissed him for not being able to hold late leads.

Here's my reply to Bicyle RepairMan. I took the threshold of IP slightly below 4000 to pick up the likes of Bob Gibson and Randy Johnson. This probably isn't quite everyone with that many IP, just the ones worth thinking about for the Hall of Merit (but that's nearly all of them anyway). Pre-1893 pitchers not included, except for the early years of Young and Nichols. There are a non-systematic handful of adjustments either for quality of defense (Willis and Palmer, for instance) or for WWII league depletion, or for their own offense (Ruffing). Currently active pitchers might be not quite up to date. For data on actual offensive support, ask Dag Nabbit - if he kept any of his data.

The rank is by "luck" which is really mostly support, as measured in FWP, with the luckiest/best supported first.



Bottom line: Blyleven is out at the end of the scale, and Morris is at the end of the scale in the the other direction. And Walter Johnson was even greater than you thought he was. And maybe Jerry Koosman deserves another look.

And yet, here's how Morris ranked in ERA+ in the AL in each of those 8 years:

1979 - 4th
1980 - 37th
1981 - 14th
1982 - 31st
1983 - 11th
1984 - 23rd
1985 - 10th
1986 - 6th
1987 - 8th

Does that really look like the 3rd best in the league in that span?

He was rather clearly the second best pitcher in either league in that span.

His average and walks ticked up a bit, power however was down. Ratio of runs to PA is about the same (if significant-not sure how they figger that).

That's a normal performance. Most pitchers show the same pattern.

I also pointed out that Jim Palmer was even less impressive in such situations, but nobody has ever dissed him for not being able to hold late leads.

Mostly because Palmer didn't blow late leads. Palmer had a late-inning lead (after the sixth inning) on 688 occasions and lost 51 of them (7.4%). Blyleven had a late-inning lead on 711 occasions and lost 68 of them (9.6%). When the lead was 3 runs or fewer, Palmer lost 48 of 366 (13.1%), Blyleven 64 of 370 (17.3%)

-- MWE

Great food for thought, everyone--thank you. I'm off to rebuild a floor so I probably won't be able to digest just the last six posts for the next week or so.