The writers didn't really WANT to elect Sutton, though. They just kind of had to because keeping someone out when only 11 pitchers had more wins than him just couldn't be made to fly. I don't think that, in general, "he's a Don Sutton-type pitcher" is a terribly convincing argument to them, at all.

If you could convince them Blyleven was better than Ryan, that'd be a lot more meaningful to them... thing is that they would tune you out as soon as you started to try, because it's NOLAN RYAN.

I dunno how to get through to them on this one.

Blyleven not being enshrined, I would say, is the biggest baseball problem the HOF has. Don't get me started on the non-baseball ones, but suffice to say that I won't be going there again until Dale Petrosky's no longer associated with it in any way. I'm glad I got to go once, but I'm sorry I gave Petrosky my entry money.

And if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees, he'd be President of the United States...

Blyleven not being enshrined, I would say, is the biggest baseball problem the HOF has.

Blyleven should go in with Santo, it would be poetic justice.

And if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees, he'd be President of the United States...

Well, he's not exactly eligible, but maybe they'd have amended the Constitution for him.

Probably my Cubs prejudice, but for me Santo's absence is a bigger crime than Blyleven's.

And I agree with the DA. Sutton is in only because he won 300 games and, well, y'know, 300 game winners have to go in eventually. Otherwise, Sutton would be suffering the fate of Tommy John.

Though Don Sutton is #1 in his comp list -- who knew? In fact Sutton was his most similar for the last 11 years of his career.

A better comp for Blyleven is probably Fergie Jenkins, who also had to wait quite a while. But Fergie also didn't win 300 games. Fergie pitched for some pretty bad and some pretty good teams. Fergie got in on all those 20-win seasons, the CYA (plus 4 more top 3 finishes), and the great control.

Another good argument for Blyleven, if the voters believed in such things, is that from ages 26-30, his most similar pitcher was Drysdale (despite not pitching in Dodgers Stadium). Drysdale had just one more top season, then got hurt and was done after 32. Blyleven pitched 11 more seasons. Drysdale plus 1700+ innings of above-average pitching ought to be HOF-worthy.

Much as we like to gripe, it's not like Blyleven was recognized as dominant in his day. Just 2 AS teams (you'd think he'd have made it as lone rep plenty of times) and 2 top 3 CYA finishes.

Those pretty much wrap up the reasons why he's not in. Didn't win 300 like Sutton, didn't win 20 consistently (which would have led to better CYA finishes) like Fergie, was never viewed as dominant like Drysdale. I don't know what else "we" can do but keep pointing out that he was as good or better than those guys.

And the DA is right that the case against Ryan is unwinnable.

Probably my Cubs prejudice, but for me Santo's absence is a bigger crime than Blyleven's.

I feel the same, Walt. I haven't read the sage words of Mr. Davis in some time. Nicely put.

I may have a few questions heading for you regarding my 1935 Cubs book.

Forget the Farmer’s Museum. I’ll never travel north on Route 80, because when I go to Cooperstown it’s to see the Hall of Fame.

You'll also never travel North on 80 because it's an East-West Highway.

You'll also never travel North on 80 because it's an East-West Highway.

?? 80 goes north along the west side of Lake Otsego. Of course, I don't know anyone who calls it that. And that sentence makes me sad, anyway, because Cooperstown used to be much more than just a baseball tourist trap.

Looking closer, I'm noting the difference between Route 80 and Interstate 80.

Santo's absence

I disagree. Whose next, Bobby Bonilla?

If Bert had just hung around for another 10-15 wins, there'd be no problem...

I think everyone agrees with that, kevin, but the point is that he doesn't need anymore of any other stat. So 13 wins shouldn't be enough to keep him out (all other things considered). Plus the mitigating factor of his teams and losing 1-0 those 15 times.

And if Blyleven had pitched for the Yankees, he'd be President of the United States...

Well, he's not exactly eligible, but maybe they'd have amended the Constitution for him.

After he spent eight years as Arnold's VP.

Unfortunately, Rob's got one incorrect assumption in this article.

I absolutely agree that Blyleven deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame, but the choice of Don Sutton means the run support argument doesn't really work.

In a Hardball Times 2006 article, Bill James throws his hat in Blyleven's ring.

In addition to other factors, he takes a look at run support.

The findings showed that Blyleven did have less support than pitchers like Kaat, Carlton, and Niekro. The one pitcher on the list who had less run support than Blyleven? Don Sutton.

Blyleven got 4.19 runs/game. Sutton got 4.14.

Blyleven's bullpen was demonstrably worse though, and he lost a lot of close games (a few more than Sutton did, but actually not a whole lot more).

I hate to nitpick. If all this information tells me anything, though, it is that Blyleven was a very similar pitcher to numerous Hall of Famers, if not better, and he deserves recognition as such.

Blyleven got 4.19 runs/game. Sutton got 4.14.

Ballparks?

I think Blyleven deserves to get in because he has the career stats that are better than a lot of players in the hall.

I think Tommy John deserves to get in hall too.

If players like them are not in the hall then there are a lot of players in already that don't deserve to be there.

As a Pirate fan, Bert really hurt himself (or was hurt by Bucs) by not being able to put together good seasons for the Bucs in 78, 79 and 80 He was with teams that won 88, 98 and 83 games and yet he only won 34 in those three years. It was his first chance to pitch for a good team yet it didn't really help his record.

Ballparks; and, Sutton put in three full years before 1969; not many runs then.

his first chance to pitch for a good team

I'm sorry, the 1977 Rangers were actually an excellent team. And Bert went 14-12 for them ...

Blyleven might have hurt his candidacy by asking for a trade in Pittsburgh because he wasn't getting enough complete games.
Blyleven is not in because like John and Kaat he was never seen as dominating. Sutton got in because people figured you couldn't just ignore a 300 game winner, which also helped Niekro and Perry (Gaylord at least won a couple of Cy Youngs). Enough writers want to vote players they think were "great"
instead of "very good for a long time" to keep Blyleven out.

How many Pirates pitchers are even in the HOF? I mean besides one-season guys like Bunning.

Did anyone else find this article a little "beneath" Neyer? Wouldn't he be the first to skewer someone for making the old "Well, if Player A is in, Player B deserves to be in too" argument? I know he made a token effort at the beginning to separate Hall of Fame worthiness from stand-alone greatness, but still.

How many Pirates pitchers are even in the HOF? I mean besides one-season guys like Bunning.

Vic Willis
Jack Chesbro
Burleigh Grimes
Waite Hoyt
Rube Waddell
Pud Galvin

Am I missing any?

Santo's absence

I disagree. Whose next, Bobby Bonilla?

Chris, unless I'm interpreting your post wrongly, are you comparing a fine-hitting and fine-fielding third baseman to another third baseman that was a fine-hitter, but crappy fielder?

How many Pirates pitchers are even in the HOF? I mean besides one-season guys like Bunning.

Vic Willis
Jack Chesbro
Burleigh Grimes
Waite Hoyt
Rube Waddell
Pud Galvin

Am I missing any?

But none of those guys pitched more than five seasons for Pittsburgh (my bad: Bunning pitched for them in 1968 and 1969). The Pirates are kinda like the Reds or Tigers -- lots of their hitters are in the Hall, but no HOF pitchers who spent most of their careers with the team.

...It was his first chance to pitch for a good team yet it didn't really help his record.

Not including, of course, his rookie season as the No. 3 starter for the division-winning Twins, who won 98 games.

And if you're going to point to a Pirate team that won 83 games as an example of a "good team," then you have to include the '72, '73 and '74 Twins teams that finished either at or above .500 as "good teams," meaning that Blyleven pitched on good teams in four of his first five seasons.

16 and 18 - Yes, ballparks influence run support, and three years before 1969 may skew Sutton's support (although by how much, I'm not sure). But my point is that Sutton didn't get much run support over his career either, so saying that Blyleven's teammates failed him more than Sutton's teammates let him down isn't completely fair.

If you're playing an all-time-team league in Strat or similar game, the Pirates have a brilliant lineup in terms of fielding and hitting (Wagner, Clemente, Vaughan, Kiner, Stargell, Carey, the Waners, Traynor, Mazeroski) but maybe the weakest pitching of any old-line franchise. Cincinnati is similar ...

If you're playing an all-time-team league in Strat or similar game, the Pirates have a brilliant lineup in terms of fielding and hitting (Wagner, Clemente, Vaughan, Kiner, Stargell, Carey, the Waners, Traynor, Mazeroski) but maybe the weakest pitching of any old-line franchise.

Even the Phillies had Alexander, Roberts, Carlton and (for six years) Bunning. And they're historically inept.

Wouldn't he be the first to skewer someone for making the old "Well, if Player A is in, Player B deserves to be in too" argument?

That argument is problematic if you are using a marginal HOF player (Lloyd Waner).

The BBWAA thinks Sutton is a slam dunk (about). Ergo, using that argument *here* isn't likely to be skewered by Neyer or anyone else.

Chris, unless I'm interpreting your post wrongly, are you comparing a fine-hitting and fine-fielding third baseman to another third baseman that was a fine-hitter, but crappy fielder?

Yes, I am. How much is defense worth? An outrage that he isn't in the Hall to shouldn't even make a ballot?

That's a lot of defense - at third base even.

Santo's case simply isn't that strong. He's a popular and clever choice among statheads, but isn't really, really deserving IMO. He's borderline.

sasquatch,
I think you may be underestimating the park effects.

Santo's case simply isn't that strong. He's a popular and clever choice among statheads, but isn't really, really deserving IMO. He's borderline.

The guy stood out as a hitter and fielder for his position and was surprisingly durable player for a third baseman. Was he Schmidt? Of course not. But he seems well above the line to me. I certainly would take him over Brooks Robinson (not that Santo should go in just because he's better than Robinson, of course).

IIRC, you're a very small-HOF guy, so I can see your position. Not that I agree with it, mind you. :-)

That's a lot of defense - at third base even.

Chris, aren't you the guy that made linear-weighted translations of zone rating and noted how important and underrated 3B defense is?

It's a trick question anyway. If Bonilla had played his entire career at 3B instead of half and was just a little better defensively, then yes, he'd be a good Hall of Fame candidate. If his knees and wrist didn't go, he might be a pretty good Hall of Fame candidate now.

Cincinnati is similar ...

did pittsburgh ever have a case similar to the reds' jose rijo, who was an absolutely dominating pitcher till injuries felled him? a decade or so earlier, cincy's mario soto was sort of comparable, it seems to me, though admittedly i'm still too sleep-dazed (as of yesterday i'm having to come in to work an hour early through xmas eve ... i guess my normal 11-hour workday just wasn't getting it done) to check the records.

wasn't 3-finger brown a pirate?

& why am i too lazy to get up & walk 5 yards to pick up the store's copy of the baseball encyclopedia?

did pittsburgh ever have a case similar to the reds' jose rijo, who was an absolutely dominating pitcher till injuries felled him?

Bob Veale was a pretty good pitcher for a while. Bob Friend wasn't exactly dominating, but he was solid-plus for ten years.

And Sam Leever wouldn't disgrace the Hall if pigs were to fly and he got in.

look guys, if yall gonna talk to BBWA about a pitcher, you gotta FIRST gotta try to think how they think otherwise you not gonna get anywhere.

first, ANY pitcher who wins 300 games gonna go in the hall even if his ERA was 5 and he only struck out 1000.

why?

because BBWA actually think that a pitcher winning don't have nothing to do with his teammates and they point to sateve carlton 1975 to prove it. more proof? last year, randy johnson wasn't a winner and this year, roger clemens wasn't.

second, they think nolan ryan is the best pitcher who ever lived. tryin to argue with this like tryin to argue with your wife/gf who sez - if you loved me you'd know what i want/mean/need

so yall gonna hafta go somewhere else. and it's also dumb to drag in guys put in by the vets committee

and you gonna hafta come up with SOME kind of argument to overcome their argument that when he was playing, blylevin wasn't seen as a top pitcher. without dissin nolan...

Regarding Bert, he was perceived as something of a jerk. It wasn't until the Twins years that he got all folksy.
Bert was not a pleasant guy in the 70's. I think all the close losses and "almost" being a star ate at him.
Guessing anyway.

The two Pirate pitchers who come closest to having a Hall of Fame career qre relievers: Roy Face and Kent Tekulve. One recent pitcher who started out as gangbusters but faded to "decent career" was John Candeleria. You could also argue for Don Gullett with the Reds at roughly the same time. Were both of these pitchers pitched too much as youngsters? they probably had the curse of being too good too young and managers for contending teams had to pitch them to win.
Paul Petitte fell a little short of being a Hall of Famer, despite Branch Rickey's predictions.
The Pirates also went decades without a good first baseman. Go figure.

Santo's case simply isn't that strong. He's a popular and clever choice among statheads, but isn't really, really deserving IMO. He's borderline.

Santo is easily a top 10 thirdbaseman. I and I assume most would argue top 5. Bonilla doesn't make the top 50, especially considering that he played less than half as many games at third as Santo did, and played them poorly.

You can believe that Santo is marginal, but Bobby Bonilla has no place in your argument.

did pittsburgh ever have a case similar to the reds' jose rijo, who was an absolutely dominating pitcher till injuries felled him?

Steve Blass was not what anyone ever called dominating, but he was really pretty good for a little while till he contracted Steve Blass Syndrome.

The best Pirates' starters ever were probably Wilbur Cooper and Babe Adams. Leever, as mentioned, was also very good. Ray Kremer ... Doug Drabek ... my, what a thin history.

Here's to Zach Duke ...

Santo's case simply isn't that strong. He's a popular and clever choice among statheads, but isn't really, really deserving IMO. He's borderline.

Assume his defense was average.

When Santo retired, what 3B were better?

Bob Moose was pretty badass, but he'd moved to the bullpen shortly before the fatal car accident.

The Bucs are in an odd spot, pitcher-wise, in that the turn-of-the-century team featured Jack Chesbro and three dominant guys (Sam Leever, Deacon Phillippe, and Jesse Tannehill) ... who all ended up with 190-ish wins, just under the bar. Ten years later, they added Babe Adams ... who also ended up in the 190-win dead zone.

Also, are there two equivalent teammates more statistically similar than Leever and Phillippe? 12 years together on the same staff, and then they end up as each other's #1 comp on sim scores, on both hitting and pitching!

Both Leever and Phillippe also have teammates Chesbro and Adams on their pitching list as well, and Tannehill is the #2 on Phillippe's. Man, what an incestuous bunch.

The guy stood out as a hitter and fielder for his position and was surprisingly durable player for a third baseman.

Yes, but he didn't help his younger teammates... at least that's what I learned in Toronto!

Regarding Bert, he was perceived as something of a jerk. It wasn't until the Twins years that he got all folksy. Bert was not a pleasant guy in the 70's.

In his last start with the Twins prior to being traded to Texas, he gave the crowd the finger while walking off of the mound.

look guys, if yall gonna talk to BBWA about a pitcher, you gotta FIRST gotta try to think how they think otherwise you not gonna get anywhere.

first, ANY pitcher who wins 300 games gonna go in the hall even if his ERA was 5 and he only struck out 1000.

why?

because BBWA actually think that a pitcher winning don't have nothing to do with his teammates and they point to sateve carlton 1975 to prove it. more proof? last year, randy johnson wasn't a winner and this year, roger clemens wasn't.\

have you ever considered writing literate english? you know, just for the hell of it?

The BBWAA thinks Sutton is a slam dunk (about).

I wouldn't consider being elected on his 5th ballot a "slam dunk".

Where is the run support index guy when you need him? His blog is gone, but I found on a seemingly identical BTF discussion of Blyleven and Sutton the RSI of Sutton at 103.94 and Blyleven at 95.6

Wow, ARod is 20th all-time on the HOF Monitor list, despite still being in his 20s.*

* baseball-wise

16 and 18 - Yes, ballparks influence run support, and three years before 1969 may skew Sutton's support (although by how much, I'm not sure). But my point is that Sutton didn't get much run support over his career either, so saying that Blyleven's teammates failed him more than Sutton's teammates let him down isn't completely fair.

But that's not true. Sutton had good run support & Blyleven had bad run suppport.

I don't have the info with me at the moment, but Blyleven's RSI was a little over 95. Sutton's was around 103-104. Sutton's wasn't great, but it was above average. 95 is pretty low. Every 300 game winner is over 300 - the worst - Walter Johnson, Gaylord Perry, and Nolan Ryan - are right around there. In fact, there's only two or three HoF pitchers below 95, and only 1 (Dazzy Vance) below 94. So Blyleven's run support is far far more comparible to the most poorly supported of HoF pitchers than it will ever be to Sutton.

Plus the Dodgers teams could field.

Blyleven is not in because like John and Kaat he was never seen as dominating.

Kaat just wasn's seen as not being dominating, he just plain wasn't dominating. From 1977-80 Tommy John actually did have a very good reputation -- ASG in three straight years, and in the top four in Cy Young voting 3 times (twice in second place) -- his worst finish in that period was 8th place in CYA voting.

If you're playing an all-time-team league in Strat or similar game, the Pirates have a brilliant lineup in terms of fielding and hitting (Wagner, Clemente, Vaughan, Kiner, Stargell, Carey, the Waners, Traynor, Mazeroski) but maybe the weakest pitching of any old-line franchise.

I always thought the Tigers were a team with a lot of really good pitchers but almost no great pitchers. I'd call Newhouser great, but there's a serious question of WWII discount. Also Bunning - but he spent much of his career with the Phillies, and even these two best are Vets Committee picks. Beyond them you got: Wild Bill DOnovan, Hooks Dauss, George Mullin, Ed Killian, Earl Whitehill, Tommy Bridges, Virgil Trucks, Schoolboy Rowe, Eldon Auker, Dizzy Trout, Frank Lary, Mickey Lolich, Jack Morris, Frank Tanana, Dan Petry . . All good pitchers, but none great. McLain had a great prime, but that's it.

A better comp for Blyleven is probably Fergie Jenkins, who also had to wait quite a while.

Fergie got in on his third year. This is what - Blyleven's 9th? Fergie debuts on the ballot at the same time as Yaz, Bench, and Perry. He still got over 50% - more than Blyleven's ever gotten. Next year Palmer & Morgan got on, and Fergie stayed in his holding pattern with Perry. Next year they both eeked in with Rod Carew.

I'm sorry, the 1977 Rangers were actually an excellent team. And Bert went 14-12 for them ...

I've got mixed feelings on that season. He should've won more, but there's a few odd things about that season for him. He threw five shutouts, and the Rangers scored 5, 13, 3, 14, and 6 runs in those games for an 8.2 average. He got 4.2 runs/game (league average 4.53) otherwise. Sucks getting your best run support when you most need it -- same thing happened to Gibson in '68. I will say this - if you want to argue he pitched his best when he didn't have to worry about the loss, there's some evidence for that there. In the 13-0 game, it was 10-0 by the middle of the second. In the 14-0 game it was 9-0 by the middle of the fourth. In his four no-decisions, the Rangers won every time.

- In his second start the Rangers won 3-2 in 10 innings. The opposition tied it off of Blyleven in the 9th inning on an unearned run. Otherwise he wins.

- second no-decision's kinda odd. TX won 10-8, and Blyleven got hit for 4 runs in 3 1/3, but: all four runs were in the first, and he retired the last 8 batters he faced. The last batter lined to right and they removed Blyleven. He didn't pitch for another 13 games. Sounds like an injury to me. Ball line off of him? I dunno - anyone know?

- third no-d: Like the first game, only this time the 9th inning game tying run is earned. Oglivie went deep to tie it up. Final score: 3-2, so he pitched well, but not well enough.

- Rangers win 8-7. He didn't pitch that well that time.

Oops. Fixed?

12 years together on the same staff, and then they end up as each other's #1 comp on sim scores, on both hitting and pitching!

Dave McNally's most similiar pitcher is Mike Cuellar. Not most similar batters, though.

</I>

Yes, Vlad, Jesse Tannehill was a good pitcher -- one of my cult favorites -- and an fine hitter / reserve outfielder. Must have been quite an athlete. He might well earn a spot on a 25-man all-time-Pirate roster ...

I want to go on the record as saying that Baseball Chick is one of the best users of the English language around.

have you ever considered writing literate english? you know, just for the hell of it?

Did you really just say that?

How many Pirates pitchers are even in the HOF? I mean besides one-season guys like Bunning.


This guy Wagner had 8 1/3 innings without an earned run. He got in the HOF right away. Bert had much a longer career and all, but that ERA is outstanding.

Beyond them you got: Wild Bill DOnovan, Hooks Dauss, George Mullin, Ed Killian, Earl Whitehill, Tommy Bridges, Virgil Trucks, Schoolboy Rowe, Eldon Auker, Dizzy Trout, Frank Lary, Mickey Lolich, Jack Morris, Frank Tanana, Dan Petry

Reminds me - I always liked that the Tigers once had the Country Music Pitching Staff: Trucks, Trout, and Bridges.

have you ever considered writing literate english? you know, just for the hell of it?


Did you really just say that?

Hilarious.

A better comp for Blyleven is probably Fergie Jenkins, who also had to wait quite a while.
Fergie got in on his third year. This is what - Blyleven's 9th?

don't underestimate the importance (in the voters' minds, I mean) of the fact that Fergie won a CYA and Blyleven never did

long career-not 300 wins but + 1 CYA = HOF

(don't axe me why)

Yes, but he didn't help his younger teammates... at least that's what I learned in Toronto!

Yes, I remember Tony's presentation, Will. :-) I like Dick Allen for the Hall, too.

I see Lederer has cranked up the Blyleven campaign again. Its a Christmas tradition, like the Grinch and Charlie Brown. And this year, he's trade to bring some name recognition by importing Rob Neyer. Rich was doing better when he was just posting his arguments.

Anyway, since Primerdom is filled with the Bert for the Hall folks, I have no doubt where this will lead.

(1) 300 Wins

Yes, the BBWAA tends to view certain milestone accomplishments as being worthy of distinction. That's how things work. I'm sure many of you have taken a test where the performance criteria was laid out in advance. If you get a 70 you pass, if you get a 69 you don't pass. There aren't adjustments for lighting conditions, whether you had a cold, etc. Its a cold hard numeric line where persons on one side get a presumption that persons on the other side do not get. Bert didn't win 300 games.

(2) Adjustments

In most of the Blyleven arguments, most people drag out these nouveau stats to make their case. I don't know what Blyleven's Fourth Order WARP factor would be; I'm sure its great. And what that means is that Blyleven would probably be a great pitcher in your sim league.
In real life, he didn't quite fair so well. The game is not played in a "context nuetral environment" Blyleven lost those games, so you want to make it look like it wasn't poor Bert's fault.

Unfortunately, he does have responsibility. The guy was a 3 run dinger in the late innings waiting to happen. And you can see this from multiple vantage points.

(a) That is the popular perception.
(b) That is actually what many of us who watched him play perceive.
(c) The guy gave up 50 dingers one year, and 46 another year. To get in that class, you need to have LimaTime.

And if that doesn't fly with the baseball-on-paper crowd, I think some primate actually ran some numbers. Bert actually performed worse then he should have given run support and run distribution over his career than the set of pitchers you are comparing him too. His .536 winning percentage is deserved, and he doesn't have the "freak of nature" thing going for him that Ryan can claim. ( I can't remember who did this study, but I think it was Cri or Emeigh).

Moreover, if the earlier statement was true, i.e. Blyleven asked for a trade because he wasn't being allowed to go deeper (and thusly lose more games) then he bares even more responsibility for his loss. It doesn't matter how bad your team is if you are just going to let balls keep flying out of the park. Your fielders can't defend against a home run.

So, this is where it stands. Its not a travesty that Blyleven isn't in the Hall, and it wouldn't be a joke if he were elected to the Hall. He was an above average pitcher for a very long time. He's not the guy that you generally wanted to give the ball too, unless you are playing Diamond Mind Baseball instead of Major League Baseball.

When Santo retired, what 3B were better?

I don't think that's a compelling criterion.

Otherwise we'd induct half of the 1800 players and all the deadball guys

Santo had a short career. He didn't hit that well.

I see people picking on Bonilla - but Bonilla is a 3B, and no one views him as a HoF hitter. Maybe Szym since it was pointed out to him -

Santo was an excellent ball player. I just don't think his body of work is HoF material.

I and I assume most would argue top 5.

To argue that requires that no player was better at the position whose career came before Santo's started.

I find that to be a remarkable observation.

gef the talking mongoose Posted: December 13, 2005 at 11:41 AM (#1775363)


have you ever considered writing literate english? you know, just for the hell of it?

no

because i'm not literate.

get over it

When Santo retired, what 3B were better?

I don't think that's a compelling criterion.

Otherwise we'd induct half of the 1800 players and all the deadball guys

Well, I think you're being ridiculous. We're not talking deadball era, we're talking about someone who retired in 1974, with how many 3B that retired previously that you could argue were better hitters? Eddie Mathews (who, by the way, was elected on the THIRD ballot)? Who else?

Santo had a short career. He didn't hit that well.

He hit damn well for a 3B.

To argue that requires that no player was better at the position whose career came before Santo's started.

I find that to be a remarkable observation.

It is remarkable. And that's why he should be a Hall of Famer.

Its a cold hard numeric line where persons on one side get a presumption that persons on the other side do not get. Bert didn't win 300 games.

Except it's not, since you can win far fewer than 300 games and get admitted. Blyleven has the K's, the shutouts and the ERA to suggest that he was pulling his teams to victory at the level of a HOF pitcher. You have the wrong academic analogy--when Harvard goes around handing out admissions, it's entirely probable that a student with a 3.7 GPA will get in and a student with a 3.9 will get left out, once you consider the environment. 3.7 ain't 3.9, and 287 ain't 300, but there are other factors.

Bert actually performed worse then he should have given run support and run distribution over his career than the set of pitchers you are comparing him too.

You may be right, but we need a google expert here--I remember Emeigh concluding the exact opposite (i.e. that Blyleven won at a rate comparable to other elite pitchers in his generation, given his run support and allowed distributions). But I'm willing to concede the point if google proves me wrong.

Santo had a short career

Chris, that just isn't so. I think that Santo is eighth all time in games played at third base (after Robinson, Nettles, Gaetti, Boggs, Schmidt, Bell, and Mathews ... am I forgetting anybody?), and that's a huge item in his favor, actually. He retired young, but he was good enough to start young. I can accept that he didn't do enough in his 15-year career to impress you, but it's one of the longest stints at 3B that anyone ever did.

He hit damn well for a 3B.

He hit well for a guy who wasn't moved - the error many make is that it is assumed it was valuable to have Santo entrenched at thrid base. It's not necessarily.

Bonilla, not a good fielder at third, didn't play third there his whole career because he didn't have to. Santo did.

That's also true of Harmon Killebrew and Dick Allen and Jim Thome (no, I don't think Thome had to be moved - he did have some back problems). I shouldn't make this argument now because I am at work, and I always prefer to check my facts.

Is the difference between Brooks Robinson's glove (and 700 games) and Santo's and their bats make Santo better? Heck, it appears the response is going to be "easily". Okay, then *how* can the difference between Santo's glove and Bonilla's warrant such a gap? It MUST be a gap larger than the Robinson/Santo because Brooks (I'm guessing here) is a top 10 3B and Bonilla isn't a top 50.

To me, it isn't "just better than peers". Maybe all the 3B sucked (or SS or whatever) I want sustained excellence or a peak of ridiculous heights.

If Santo hit as well as Dick Allen or Harmon Killebrew, or whatever - had a OPS+ closer to 135 than 125, I'd agree someone of 14 seasons is worthy, but not at 125.

If Santo is elected, then in 4 years, we'll be rolling out the carpet for Scott Rolen. Maybe we should, but I want more than 14 good seasons - if you only have 11-14 seasons - have a HUGE peak.

Normally, someone (on USENET it is DMN or Szym) says "But that's not what the HoF is" and blah blah blah about who has been elected.

It is remarkable. And that's why he should be a Hall of Famer.

Off-hand, I don't believe that it is true.

Its not a travesty that Blyleven isn't in the Hall, and it wouldn't be a joke if he were elected to the Hall

Backlasher makes a calm, reasoned post--stop the presses

why don't we just elect Blyleven/Kaat/Tommy John as an entry so we don't have to go through this every election

I think that Santo is eighth all time in games played at third base

I do keep saying 14, and it is 15. My bad.

He played every game - and as you are about to read, didn't do anything else - until he was forced off third in his last season.

Flexibility is a plus, not a minus.

Did you really just say that?

no, i typed it.

& i'm sorry, but anyone intelligent enough to use the internet & follow baseball with any degree of acumen is far more than intelligent enough to compose sentences in a competent manner.

if near-pidgin english is simply the sort of thing we're not supposed to mention around here, tough. i've never been very good about ignoring elphants in rooms, though. it's one of my many, many failings.

Flexibility is a plus, not a minus

I don't quite get it. Most of the "flexible" 3B -- Killebrew, Perez, Brett, Darrell Evans -- end up at 1B because they can't field well enough at third. That's not "flexible"; it's sort of the reverse.

The stronger anti-Santo argument for me is that he was helped way too much by Wrigley Field as a hitter. I don't know if I buy that, either, but it's more telling.

He played every game - and as you are about to read, didn't do anything else - until he was forced off third in his last season.

He was forced off third because the White Sox had a numbskull for a manager who thought Santo should play second base. Santo was forced off third the same way A Rod was forced off SS.

He hit well for a guy who wasn't moved - the error many make is that it is assumed it was valuable to have Santo entrenched at thrid base. It's not necessarily.

Bonilla, not a good fielder at third, didn't play third there his whole career because he didn't have to. Santo did.

Why do you keep bringing up Bobby Bonilla? By whose accounting was Bonilla's offensive contribution equal to that of Santo's? And what is the evidence that it would have been a good idea to move Santo to another position?

By all accounts I know of, Santo was a fine fielding 3B, pretty much to the end of his career.

Killebrew would have been a more valuable player if he had played 3B and not sucked there, his entire career. Same with Dick Allen. I don't get your point.

Is the difference between Brooks Robinson's glove (and 700 games) and Santo's and their bats make Santo better? Heck, it appears the response is going to be "easily". Okay, then *how* can the difference between Santo's glove and Bonilla's warrant such a gap?

Bonilla played less than half as many games at 3B than Santo, and by all accounts did so poorly. We have to assume that he didn't stay at 3B because he lacked the skills for it. He had to be replaced by somebody, Chris, and therein is his value.

Maybe all the 3B sucked (or SS or whatever) I want sustained excellence or a peak of ridiculous heights.

That's a different point entirely, and a rather unique position that I suppose you're entitled to (i.e., no Hall of Fame 3B's until the 1970s, and one until the 1990s).

Personally, I think the Hall of Fame is a joke, but if you're to come up with some kind of reasonable standard for it, I can't imagine a system where Santo doesn't make it. The reason he's not in is because 1) he had a reputation for being something of a jerk, 2) he won no MVP awards, and 3) no pennants or rings .

Flexibility is a plus, not a minus.

Flexibility is a plus when it is being used to better aline the talent you have on the field. However, being moved around because the team can't find a place to play you because your glove is bad everywhere is a minus.

The difference between Chone Figgins and Bobby Bo.

And Santo was "forced," of course, to second base, because his glove was so much better than Bill Melton's (Melton was blocked at first by Dick Allen, another "flexible" 3B ... It didn't work -- in fact it looks really screwy in retrospect -- but Santo had the glove to make it plausible ...

The Pirates are kinda like the Reds or Tigers -- lots of their hitters are in the Hall, but no HOF pitchers who spent most of their careers with the team.

Hal Newhouser says hi.

if near-pidgin english is simply the sort of thing we're not supposed to mention around here, tough. i've never been very good about ignoring elphants in rooms, though. it's one of my many, many failings.

People talk how they talk. If you're offended by people who write or talk differently than you, then fine, I guess it is something you're not supposed to mention. It's a matter of courtesy and respect.

And frankly, courtesy seems to be a lot more important than following the rules of grammar.

Also, is it some delicious form of irony that totally escapes me that you yourself don't seem to be interested in capitalization and spelling?

First Bonilla, now Rolen?

In Santo's best 8 year run, he missed a total of 11 games. I doubt Rolen ever went 8 consecutive weeks without missing 11 games. At his current pace, Rolen will be 38 before he equals Santo's games played.

& i'm sorry, but anyone intelligent enough to use the internet & follow baseball with any degree of acumen is far more than intelligent enough to compose sentences in a competent manner.

if near-pidgin english is simply the sort of thing we're not supposed to mention around here, tough. i've never been very good about ignoring elphants in rooms, though. it's one of my many, many failings.

I still think it's funny that someone who can't capitalize words is ragging on someone else for communicating in their chosen manner on the internet.

Hey gef, do you have a well respected blog that is a main source of information for many of your favorite team's fans?

No?

Well, until you start one, and put your opinions and thoughts out for the world to see in a semi-permanent manner, maybe you should consider shutting the #### up.

Santo had a short career. He didn't hit that well.

.293 career EqA. .333-.315-.333-.321 in his prime. Who equals or surpasses that? Schmidt, Mathews, Boggs and Brett. Who else comes close? Elliott and Hack? What player with a reasonably lengthy career am I missing?

To argue that requires that no player was better at the position whose career came before Santo's started.

I find that to be a remarkable observation.

If you find it so remarkable, refute it. Which of his predecessors were better? Eddie Mathews and...?

if near-pidgin english is simply the sort of thing we're not supposed to mention around here, tough. i've never been very good about ignoring elphants in rooms, though. it's one of my many, many failings.

First of all, pidgin has a much more precise meaning than "grammatically poor", which is in fact the reason for that attribute, and bc's posts don't fit it. Near-pidgin is just not a correct description at all, except for the racial implication ... may I suggest "e-bonics", which term properly captures both race and medium without the inappropriate language-mixing connotation.

Second, as long as she's understood what's the problem? That is, after all, what language is for.

Third, I think it's bit presumptuous for you to take on the task as the arbiter of what is literate ... language is not defined by a canon, or the chicago manual of style, but by usage. bc's "dialect" is not particularly unique on the internet. It is only relative to the rest of us over-educated under-performing faux intelligentsia that her manner of speaking stands out strongly.

Ugh... another meta-thread.

Got the RSI info in front of me --

Blyleven lost 11 wins due to run support. Adjust for that and he's 298-239. He still underachieved. I reckon he underachieved by 9 wins in hs career.

Other liveballers who underachieved by 9 or more games:

Wilbur Cooper -10
Carl Mays -11
Bob Friend -12
Dolf Luque -12
Frank Tanana -12
Ned Garvin -13
Red Ruffing -15
Bob Shakwey -15
Curt Simmons -18 (ties Tim Keefe for biggest underachiver ever)

So Blyleven's the 10th worst underachiver of the last 85 years or so.

Deadball and 19th century pitchers are more likely to underachieve badly & more recent guys are more likely to overachieve according to the RSI W?L aadjustment. Not sure why that is - Dial theorized it was due to the rise of the bullpen & I'll go with that. Heck, four of the nine above beganin the deadball era.

The only guy I've ever looked at closely is Ruffing - he was terrible in 1-run games.

If anyone's curious, Simmons's underachieving mostly came with the Cards.

Tigers, Pirates, and the Hall of Merit:

gef - Three Finger Brown was a Cub (mostly).

At the HoM, we have elected Newhouser. The issue of how much to discount his WWII performance was pretty throroughly aired, and we decided he was great anyway.. Those other Tigers - Trout, Trucks, Bridges, Newsom - they're all getting some support, although none of them is particularly close to the top of the backlog.

Then there are all those deadball Pirates: Willis (although I think of Willis more as a Boston Beaneater), Tannehill, Leever, Phillippe, Adams. We've passed on all of them, although Willis still gets some support and karlmagnus has waged a one-voter campaign on behalf of Leever. These Pirates, and their contemporaries, the Cubs of Brown, Reulbach, Overall, et al., provided two things to their pitchers to help them succeed. The first was terrific defensive support. (Everyone knows about Tinker to Evers to Chance, and Wagner and Leach also anchored quite a defense). The second was that they used each pitcher less intensely than most other teams and spread the load more evenly among several pitchers. It's hard to argue with the results. But for evaluating the individual greatness of these pitchers (including Brown!) it makes it harder to disentangle the quality of the pitcher from the success of the system.

We did elect Brown, fairly easy, although there was some dissent at the time.

We've been fairly friendly to long-career pitchers, the guys with over 4000 innings. We just elected Red Ruffing and Eppa Rixey is in position to go in fairly soon. But we haven't yet had that "Don Sutton" argument: to what extent is the longevity of 1970's-centered pitchers (Sutton, Ryan, Niekro, Carlton, Perry, and so on) a condition of the times that needs to be corrected for?

(c) The guy gave up 50 dingers one year, and 46 another year. To get in that class, you need to have LimaTime.

This, I think is overplayed. During the first of those seasons, Blyleven went 17-14 for a 71-91 team, and put up an ERA+ of 116. In the second of those seasons, the next year, he went 15-12 for a 85-77 team with an ERA+ of 108, and then 3-1 in the postseason to help them win the World Series.

Between those two seasons, Blyleven gave his team 539 significantly above average innings, with a W-L record significantly better than the team's, as well as 26 IP of good postseason pitching as the #2 starter on a WS champion, despite being in the twilight of his career. Not exactly Lima Time.

You can make the underperforming argument against Blyleven, and you make the 50 HR is two much argument, but those two really don't intersect.

So Blyleven's the 10th worst underachiver of the last 85 years or so.

...inasmuch as run support and luck are measures of underachievement.

What player with a reasonably lengthy career am I missing?

Home Run Baker. .298 career, and a stretch of .306-.286-.311-.333-.333-.308.

As Dick Farrell might have said, you need to be a heck of a pitcher to give up 50 home runs in a season.

Speaking of HRs, if Robin Roberts is in (elected by the writers too), I don't think giving up a lot of HRs is a reason to keep a pitcher out.

If you find it so remarkable, refute it.

Well, piss off. I already said (#67):

I shouldn't make this argument now because I am at work, and I always prefer to check my facts.

gllleeeedddal;rjhq['hej GHGHGHGH;jf444^^^^^^^^423;'k ;adkljg; p;weojk HHAAAAAAA jjjjjjjjjekjffe oo0p[,\\ jk[p0pergk brandDUNNN bakkkyyyyyyyyedkm 'wpt r0 !!!! " S :)


hey, i'm just expressing myself in my own way. #### you if you can't understand it.

Except it's not, since you can win far fewer than 300 games and get admitted.

And up till now, you cannot win 300 games and get left out. I think that is the exact definition of "presumption." If you win 300, you are presumed to belong in the HoF. You need a compelling argument to keep you out. If you don't win 300, you don't get the presumption of belonging, you have to make your case. Blyleven's case is decent, but not really iron clad, especially among those that actually saw him pitch well enough to lose on a number of occasions.

when Harvard goes around handing out admissions, it's entirely probable that a student with a 3.7 GPA will get in and a student with a 3.9 will get left out, once you consider the environment. 3.7 ain't 3.9, and 287 ain't 300, but there are other factors

.

Yep, chiefly among them are one of those tests that it seems every single Primate likes to brag about. And at Harvard, you get a nice little boost if you have the right last name. That's a cold, hard presumption that is just the way it is. If you have the right name, you get in, unless the case against your admission is overwhelming. If you don't have the right name, you can still get in, but you have to make the case on its merits. And going to one party in Hyannisport just doesn't rise to the level of a presumption.

as the #2 starter

If he gets in, that should go on his plaque. The #2 starter... Unless that #1 starter is Greg Maddux, that is strike against you, not a solid argument. Without looking it up, I presume the #1 starter was baseball immortal and inner circle HoF John Candeleria.

What player with a reasonably lengthy career am I missing?

Home Run Baker. .298 career, and a stretch of .306-.286-.311-.333-.333-.308.

That's why I threw in "reasonably lengthy." Santo's "short career" was 40% longer than Baker's.

Speaking of HRs, if Robin Roberts is in (elected by the writers too), I don't think giving up a lot of HRs is a reason to keep a pitcher out.

Roberts got in for a reason that will forever elude Blyleven: six consecutive 20-win seasons.

gllleeeedddal;rjhq['hej GHGHGHGH;jf444^^^^^^^^423;'k ;adkljg; p;weojk HHAAAAAAA jjjjjjjjjekjffe oo0p[,\\ jk[p0pergk brandDUNNN bakkkyyyyyyyyedkm 'wpt r0 !!!! " S :)

I think that's meatwad's critique of Dusty Baker.

Best Regards

John

Famous Original Walewander's Posted: December 13, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1775618)
The Pirates are kinda like the Reds or Tigers -- lots of their hitters are in the Hall, but no HOF pitchers who spent most of their careers with the team.

Hal Newhouser says hi.

As does Eppa Rixey.

I think that's meatwad's critique of Dusty Baker.

That white boy's been sitting in the sun for too long.

as the #2 starter

If he gets in, that should go on his plaque.

Disingenuous as always...

He was a #2 starter as a 36-year-old.

I know BL is talking mostly about perceptions, but still:

Without looking it up, I presume the #1 starter was baseball immortal and inner circle HoF John Candeleria.

Not sure what "#1 starter" even means, but if it means he was the best starter on his team, Nolan Ryan was that for maybe half his seasons. Maybe. He had inner circle HOFers Frank Tanana, Mike Scott, and Vern Ruhle taking him to school.

One other thing about Blyleven ... other than those two seasons near the end of his career with the Twins, in which he was still pretty good, he wasn't really homer-prone. He was certainly no Robin Roberts. No other seasons in the top 5 in the league in HR allowed, and just 3 more in the top 10. This from a guy who threw a lot of innings (11 times top 10) so it's not because he didn't have the opportunity to do so.

Well, piss off. I already said (#67):

I shouldn't make this argument now because I am at work, and I always prefer to check my facts.

Are you pretending that was a blanket statement, and not relating specifically to the subject of players who've been moved off of third?