Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game

Tuesday, January 07, 2003

Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven

Charlie looks at two of the top pitchers of the 80s.

Who the hell was Bert Blyleven? Bert Blyleven was a right-handed starting pitcher, mostly in the American League, who played between 1970 and 1992. He pitched for Minnesota, Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Minnesota again and California, and played on World Series winning teams in Pittsburgh and in his second stint in Minnesota. Folks knew him to have a great curveball.

Who the hell was Jack Morris? Jack Morris was a right-handed starting pitcher, mostly for Detroit, who played between 1977 and 1994. He pitched for Detroit, Minnesota, Toronto and Cleveland, and played on World Series winning teams in Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto. He won the most games of all pitchers in the 1980s, and won Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

I think it is safe to say that no one thought Bert Blyleven as the best player or pitcher in baseball. Even for a pitcher, Blyleven did not fare well in the MVP voting:

1973 AL 4/336, 26th
1989 AL 32/392, 13th

That’s it. Two seasons, 0.09 MVP award shares. If someone did think Blyleven was the best player in baseball, he wasn’t telling the MVP voters this.

It is the same tale for Jack Morris. Morris, like most pitchers of the Cy Young Award era, did not garner many MVP votes.

1981 AL 17/392 15th
1983 AL 2/392 21st
1987 AL 5/392 20th
1991 AL 29/392 13th
1992 AL 18/392 13th

That’s 0.18 Award Shares. He did better than Blyleven, mostly because he pitched on better teams, but Morris’s voting record is nothing about which to brag.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Usually not, though usually the best pitcher. When Blyleven came to the majors, he joined a Twins pitching staff that Jim Perry and Jim Kaat led, and Ron Perranoski was the closer. Luis Tiant even pitched a half-season for the 1970 Twins. In a few years, he was the Twins best pitcher, though he stood out more for bulk totals than for anything else. In 1972, Blyleven threw 287.1 innings and had a 2.73 ERA—but finished 17-17 for a 77-77 team, and the staff ERA was 2.84.

He kept pitching well though his win-loss numbers were not much better than those of his teammates in both Minnesota and Texas.

His ERAs were usually better. He was likely the Pirates’ best pitcher in the Fam-I-Ly era, though he did not pitch much better than his teammates.  Those Pirate staffs had very good bullpens, and Blyleven pitched many no-decisions. In Cleveland, he was the best pitcher on the team when he was not hurt, which was most of 1982 and much of 1983. He likely did not have the best stuff on the team, but the man who did, Len Barker, did not pitch to his full ability. These were his best years, and the poor Cleveland team and injuries masked this.

When he came back to Minnesota in the mid-1980s, Frank Viola, not Blyleven, was the Twins ace.

In short, Blyleven was usually the best starter on his team from 1971 to 1984. He had better ERAs than his teammates, but not much better win-loss numbers. He was 21 Wins Above Team for his career, and his teams were a bit worse than .500 when he was not pitching. Some of those teams did have position players who were better than Blyleven, like Harmon Killebrew, Rod Carew, Willie Stargell and Dave Parker (at that time).

Morris was the best pitcher on the Tigers, though Willie Hernandez won the MVP award in 1984. (Sparky Anderson was the last manager to not use the one-inning closer, so the thought that Hernandez was the best pitcher in the league in 1984 is not outrageous.) Alan Trammell was a better player than Morris, and Lou Whitaker may well have been too.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Bert Blyleven was likely never the best pitcher in baseball or his league. He did not fare well in the Cy Young Award voting:

1973 AL 1/120, 7th
  1984 AL 45/140, 3rd
1985 AL 9/140, 3rd
1989 AL 9/140, 4th

Blyleven had two good showings in the mid-1980s with Cleveland and Minnesota. Both of these teams were bad when Blyleven pitched for them.

In his 1984 year with Cleveland, he went 19-7 with a 2.87 ERA for a team that won 75 games and lost 87. That was likely his best year, and Willie Hernandez, a relief pitcher, won the Cy Young Award.

Jack Morris never won a Cy Young Award, but did do well in the voting.

1981 AL 21/140, 3rd
1983 AL 38/140, 2nd
1984 AL 1/140, 7th
1986 AL 13/140, 5th
1987 AL 3/140, 9th
1991 AL 17/140, 4th
1992 AL 10/140, 5th

That’s 0.74 Award Shares. He was never the best pitcher in the league—in the 1981-1984 time frame, Dave Stieb was the best pitcher in the AL, and after that, Roger Clemens was the best pitcher. He was usually good, but never brilliant.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Blyleven usually did not pitch for good teams, which made his win-loss numbers worse. Thus, you would not think he would have pitched in many pennant races. He did pitch in some, and pitched well when he did.

In 1970, Blyleven’s rookie year, the Twins won the AL West by 9 games. Blyleven went 10-9 for this team, which would have won its division with or without Blyleven. The Twins did not play well for years after that, hovering around .500.

In 1977, Blyleven went 14-12 for a Texas team that went 94-68, good for second place, 8 games behind Kansas City. For Blyleven to have pitched well enough for the Rangers to have a more wins than the Royals, Blyleven would have had to have won 23 games and lost 3.

From 1978 to 1980, Blyleven pitched for Pittsburgh, which had good teams. Blyleven went 14-10 for a Pirates team that had a 88-73 year, 1.5 games out of first place. In 1979, the Pirates won the World Series, and beat Montreal for the AL East title by 2 games. In 1980, the Pirates fell to 83-79, 8 games out of first. Blyleven had a bad year, going 8-13, which was a big reason the Pirates lost.

After 1980, Blyleven pitched for Cleveland, which was in the middle of it swell-known 33 year funk that lasted from trading Rocky Colavito for Harvey Kuenn to John Hart signing many young players to long-term contracts. Thus, he did not pitch in any pennant races.

The Twins of 1987-1988 were good. The Twins won the AL West in 1987 by 2 games, but that’s misleading. They lost their their last 5 games after clinching. Blyleven pitched well, 15-12. The next year, he pitched poorly, 10-17 for a team that finished 91-71. It is unlikely the Twins could have made up 13 games had Blyleven pitched better, though they would have made it closer.

In 1989, Blyleven pitched for California, which ended the year 8 games out of first place. Blyleven had his last good year for this team, 17-5, and likely could not have pitched well enough to make up those 8 games. 

Looking at what Bill James looked for Don Drysdale—how well Blyleven pitched against all teams that ended the year within 10 games of the division winner in all years Blyleven’s team ended the year within 10 games of the division winner (save 1970), from 1 August until the division winner clinched the division—we come up with these numbers: 

13 96.1 82 33 31  6 25 68 7-4 2.90 

The years in the above numbers are 1978-1980, 1987 and 1989. He threw two shutouts—16 August 1980 against Montreal and 24 August 1989 in Kansas City—and two other complete games. He threw 9 quality starts, and had a mean game score of 60. His worst game—a 7-1 loss against Montreal on 23 September 1980—scores at 36, which is good for a worst game of 13.

Furthermore, Bert Blyleven pitched well in the postseason, 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in 6 starts and 2 relief games. Thus, in the 19 most important starts of his life, Blyleven went 11-5 with a 2.86 ERA in 138.2 innings, and was 1-0 with a 0.00 ERA in 5 relief innings to boot, and he did not have a really bad start.

That is good pitching, folks. Let’s add Blyleven’s postseason starts:

13 96.1 82  4 35 31 25 68 7-4 2.90  
6  41.1 38  6 14 13  7 31 4-1 2.83 

And, with the Pirates down 3-1 in the 1979 World Series, Blyleven pitched 4 innings of scoreless relief to win Game 5. Damn you, Bert Blyleven.

Jack Morris started 24 times against pennant contenders—a team that ended the season within 10 games of first place (or won the division by less than 10 games) from 1 August until the clinch/elimination day—during his career. He went 12-9 in these games with a 3.78 ERA, about what one would think a pitcher with Morris’s overall numbers would have.

His best year down the stretch was 1983, a tight race where he went 3-1 with 4 complete games in these games against New York, Toronto and Baltimore.

His worst year in these games is, oddly, the most well-known pennant race of these, the 1987 AL East race. Morris was 0-3 in 4 starts against Milwaukee and Toronto in this race, which Detroit won on the last day of the year.

GS    IP   H HR  R ER BB  SO  W-L  ERA
24 188.1 161 18 79 68 73 141 12-9 3.78 
13  92.1  83 10 39 39 32  64  7-4 3.80

Morris was 7-4 in 13 postseason starts, with a 3.80 ERA. One of those wins was Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, as we all know, and one of those losses came against Bert Blyleven. Bert beat Jack in Game 2 of the 1987 ALCS; Twins 6, Tigers 3.

Overall, he was as good as Blyleven in the key regular season starts when you fix for era and park and he was as good as Blyleven in the postseason. He has a big game rep, which he warrants no more than Blyleven does. Neither pitched like Bob Gibson did in the big games, but both pitched well.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Blyleven pitched until he was 41, and had many good years after 30. He was 11-7 for a bad Cleveland team in 1981 and 19-7 in 1984, 17-16 with two teams in 1985, 17-14 in 1986 and 15-12 in 1987, and 17-5 in 1989. So yes.

Morris had a long prime, so this is a little hard to give an answer, but yes. Morris pitched until he was 39, and won 21 games at age 37, though he pitched only OK.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No for both pitchers. Ron Santo was likely a better player, though in a shorter career. Eddie Murray and Ryne Sandberg definitely were better.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

This is Blyleven’s best argument. Of his 10 best comps, all are in the Hall of Fame save Jim Kaat, a former teammate of Blyleven’s, and Tommy John, another pitcher from the same time. Both are popular candidates. He is very similar, both in numbers and in non-statistical arguments, to Don Sutton. Both pitched for many years and were good, but not great, pitchers most of the time. Both won 20 games once, were All-Stars 6 times together. Sutton has better numbers, and he pitched for better teams, though Blyleven pitched much better in the post-season. As a pitcher, Blyleven was similar to Robin Roberts and Ferguson Jenkins—right-handed pitchers with great curveballs who threw high in the strike zone.

Morris’s best comp, Dennis Martinez, is not in the Hall of Fame and is not going into the Hall of Fame. Martinez is the only pitcher who has a 900+ similarity score. Morris was a better pitcher overall than Martinez, and had a much better peak, though he was not a much better pitcher overall. Of the rest of his top 10, it has 7 Hall of Famers (Bob Gibson, Red Ruffing, Amos Rusie, Burleigh Grimes, Bob Feller, Jim Bunning and Jim Palmer), one popular candidate (Luis Tiant) and one man who is not yet eligible but will not go into the Hall once he is eligible (Chuck Finley). Even though Morris is clearly a better pitcher than Finley and is a bit better than Martinez, his ERA+ is 105, worse than all his comps.

8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Blyleven scores 50 on the HOF Standards test, 113.5 on the HOF Monitor. His Black Ink is 16. Looking at the top 200, there are 6 Hall of Fame pitchers who have lower Black Ink scores than Blyleven: Pud Galvin, Eddie Plank, Herb Pennock, Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers and Candy Cummings (whom some say invented the pitch of which Blyleven was the master, the curveball). He won 287 games. Of all the eligible pitchers who won between 270 and 300 games, we have:

* 6 Hall of Famers (Lefty Grove, Early Wynn, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Red Ruffing and Burleigh Grimes)
* 3 great candidates (Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Kaat)
* 2 19th-century guys whom no one remembers (Bobby Mathews and Tony Mullane).

Morris is on the cusp. He has a Black Ink score of 20, which is low for a Hall of Famer, and he meets 39% of Hall of Fame standards. He won 254 games in his career, 38th all time, tied with Red Faber (a Hall of Fame mistake).

Among the eligibles between 240 and 270 wins, 14 of 21 pitchers are in the Hall of Fame. Many of these men are borderline Hall of Famers or outright mistakes (Eppa Rixey, Ted Lyons, Vic Willis, Herb Pennock).

None of the seven men who are not in the Hall of Fame (Jim McCormick, Gus Weyhing, Jack Quinn, Dennis Martinez, Jack Powell and Frank Tanana) are candidates.

Morris was a better pitcher than the men who are not in the Hall of Fame, though about as good as the borderline folks.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

None that I can tell. Blyleven was an average hitter and fielder. Morris pitched one of the best postseason games of all time, a 10-inning shutout against Atlanta in the seventh game of the 1991 World Series. Overall, however, he was 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA in the postseason, which is about as good as his regular season record. Morris came to bat only once in the regular season; in fact, Morris was an outspoken booster of the designated hitter rule.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Well, let’s limit this question to the starting pitchers on the ballot:

Blyleven, Rick Honeycutt, Darryl Kile, Sid Fernandez, Danny Jackson, Morris, Fernando Valenzuela, Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Only Blyleven, John and Kaat are reasonable candidates, though some sportswriters will make arguments for Morris, who has no business being a Hall of Famer.

It is hard to pick the best of the three. Blyleven had 339 Win Shares, Kaat has 268 and John has 289. My gut feeling agrees with the Win Shares, ranking them Blyleven, John and Kaat, in that order. If Blyleven is the best eligible pitcher not in the Hall of Fame, Morris cannot be.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Blyleven was never an MVP candidate, which is common for a pitcher in the Cy Young Award era. He never won a Cy Young Award, though he did have a good year in 1984 and the writers picked him third in the Cy Young Award voting. The AL writers chose Willie Hernandez, a relief pitcher. Dan Quisenberry, another reliever, was second. Were we to limit the field to starting pitchers, I would have picked Mike Boddicker or Dave Stieb myself. Like Don Sutton, he did not have many big years.

Morris never won an MVP award, nor was he close. Pitchers rarely won MVP awards in Morris’s time, though the AL MVP voters often chose the MVP award winner out of a hat (which they still do to this day, giving MVP awards to men who had no business winning such an award, like Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada). In Morris’s best year, 1986, Roger Clemens, another pitcher, won the MVP award.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go into the Hall of Fame?

Blyleven was an All Star twice, a very low number. I do not have the numbers and do not care to know how many folks were on two All Star teams, but I know many did and most are not in the Hall of Fame.

Morris was an All-Star five times. This is good, though not great.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Like any great pitcher, only if either pitched one game and team took the next three days off.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Not that I know of.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Aside from some ill-timed words when the BBWAA voted for his old teammate Kirby Puckett and not him, I know of no poor showings of Bert’s personality. The man’s teammates liked him, and he was known to be a funny man. He gave postgame interviews wearing a “Who Farted?” T-shirt with holes in it.

As best I can tell, Morris meets these standards. I have heard no one say that Morris does not meet these standards.

Now, I understand what I am about to say may well shock most Primer readers. Sit tight. More folks think Jack Morris was the better of the two pitchers. When I told my father I was writing about these two men, he told me that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame, and Bert Blyleven should not be. He is not alone. Most Primer readers would not agree with that. Nor would I. Let us look at the pitcher-only numbers:

Morris		Blyleven          Difference
3824	Inn	4970		1146 
389	HR	430		41
1390	BB	1322		-68 
2478	SO	3701		1223 
0.92	HR/9	0.78		0.32
3.27	BB/9	2.39		-0.53 
5.83	SO/9	6.70		9.60
See that Blyleven pitched 1146 more innings, but walked 68 fewer batters. Even if we look at the other numbers, we see that Morris would have had to pitch for about 5 more years with Pedro Martinez’s numbers to match Blyleven. We need no ERA fix; the two men pitched at the same time. Morris had an ERA+ of 105 (3.90 ERA against a mean ERA of 4.08), Blyleven of 118 (3.31 ERA against a mean 3.90 ERA)

There is no way in the world in which we live that Jack Morris was as good a pitcher as Bert Blyleven. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and you should argue with him until he goes mad. Why do folks think Jack Morris was a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven?  I shall show you some more numbers:

Morris		Blyleven	    difference 
254	W	287	    33 
186	L	250	    64
.577	Pct	.534	  -.043 
215	FWP	190	   -25 
3        20W	1            -2
1        G7W	0	    -1
The last three areas are “Fibonacci Win Points,” “Twenty Win Seasons” and “Wins in Game 7 of the World Series.”

Morris won fewer games, but his other win-loss numbers are better. His win-loss percent and Fibonacci Win Points are better than Blyleven’s. He won 20 games two more times than Blyleven, and he pitched one of the best games in baseball history in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. The gap in win-loss is having three years of Hugh Mulcahy. You know the man. His nickname was “Losing Pitcher.” Why does Morris have better win-loss numbers than Blyleven? Here are more numbers:

Morris		Blyleven	         difference 
1515	TmW	1914		399
1297	TmL	1901		604 
17	WAT	21		4 
2557	TmR	2855		298 
527	GS	684		157
4.85	R/GS	4.17		1.90 
23	TmShO	42		19 
51	10+R	40		-11 
.261	$H	.273		0.012
.264	Tm$H	.274		0.010 
35       $H+	14		-21 
Yes, I know Blyleven started 685 games. I missed one. It does not matter. Deal with it.

As you see, both men were both about 20 games better than their teams. Blyleven’s teams were about six more years of .398 baseball, which is the 2000 Kansas City Royals. Those teams were four years of facing Sandy Koufax, 1963, when we look at run support. Blyleven’s batters did not score a run 19 more games than Morris’s batters, and scored 10 or more runs 11 fewer times.

Morris had a better $H, but most of that is because his fielders saved about 40 hits a year. Morris did make better use of his run support, beating his Pythagorean projection by 7.6 Wins; Blyleven missed his by 12 Wins. Even calling that skill (and it is within the range of luck), Blyleven wins this matchup with sheer bulk numbers. (I used career numbers, not season-by-season numbers, so those may be a bit different.)

To give this article an ending, here are Morris and Blyleven career, against each other, ten starts:       

          IP   H   HR   R  ER  BB  SO  W-L   ERA 
Morris   70.2  63   7  34  34  30  48  5-5  4.33
Blyleven 64.2  63  10  29  28  18  32  3-3  3.90 
The one postseason start is in the above numbers. This means nothing, of course, as does Jack Morris’s first career start being against Bert Blyleven. It is like “A Bridge Too Far” proving the Caine-Hackman theory. I now know Pigman’s joy. To add all this together, I know Jack Morris is not a Hall of Famer. Bert Blyleven is, though he is not an inner-circle member.


Charles Saeger Posted: January 07, 2003 at 05:00 AM | 13 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. Scott Posted: January 07, 2003 at 01:18 AM (#608108)
To me, the most telling stat about Morris is this: "Morris had an ERA+ of 105 (3.90 ERA against a mean ERA of 4.08)." To me, that mekes is clear that his win totals come only from run support. His one stellar 10-inning game aside, his post-season record was no better than his regular-season record, so we can dispense with the superstitious hocus-pocus about him "knowing how to win."

Morris was an above-average pitcher who racked up a lot of wins pitching for good teams. That's all. He didn't show quite the longevity for merely "good" pitchers to make the Hall.

To lower the HOF bar to let Morris in, we'd have to first let in too many other guys. Blyleven, John, Kaat, Tiant, and the whole crop of relievers up for consideration (Gossage, Sutter, and probably Smith too). That's just off the top of my head. So Morris is at best the 8th-best pitcher not in the Hall. Not good enough.
   2. Charles Saeger Posted: January 07, 2003 at 01:19 AM (#608135)
TT: I consider Bert Blyleven to be a decent Hall of Famer. He wouldn't be a mistake like Red Faber, but he's at about the bottom of the legit candidates.

Jack Morris, in bulk totals, is about four or five years of pitching like Sandy Koufax or Pedro Martinez or Roger Clemens behind Bert Blyleven. (Just to have an innings/ERA match, Morris's ERA in those innings would need to be 1.35.) Now, having such monster years would count a little extra, so maybe he'd need but three such years, maybe even two, to be the equal in value to Blyleven.

Thus, Jack Morris is three years of pitching like Sandy Koufax (peak Koufax, of course) behind Bert Blyleven. Blyleven would be a solid Hall of Famer, but at the bottom end of solid.

If you need three years of Sandy Koufax to catch Bert Blyleven, you're not a Hall of Famer.
   3. Charles Saeger Posted: January 07, 2003 at 01:19 AM (#608137)
Fletch: when you take into account their careers ending within a couple of years of each other (Blyleven's in 1992, Morris's in 1994), that makes them contemporaries, and gives Blyleven some extra years. Blyleven's best years were in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but his mid-1970s years are close. It's hard to tell what his best years were.

As for anchoring some good staffs, so did Steve Blass, who also pitched a great Game 7. (One I saw recently on ESPN Classic, first time. He pitched so well I didn't feel so bad for the Orioles. It was hard telling myself they were going to lose, but I kept hoping Boog would have a longball 32 years later and the past would change.)
   4. Michael Posted: January 08, 2003 at 01:20 AM (#608198)
Let me get some quick points out of the way before I post my thoughts about Morris:
- Blyleven belongs in the HOF in my opinion and I'm not disagreeing that he's better qualified than Morris.
- I'm a Tiger fan and hence biased.

If you look at starting pitchers' win totals and W-L records (such as the discussion in Bill James' HOF book on Fibonnaci win points), it seems that eventually Morris (and probably everyone else above Tanana / D. Martinez) will eventually be inducted in the HOF or else the Hall is going to increase its historical de facto criteria for entrance. The Hall has been inducting Jim Bunning and Vic Willis the last few years -- that's the low-end dividing HOF pitchers from non-HOF pitchers. Pointing to pitchers with better statistics who have not been considered by the veterans' committee for 15-20 years doesn't reveal much about the de facto dividing line between HOF starting pitchers and non HOF starting pitchers.

If someone (and there's plenty of you out there!) wants to disagree with that last paragraph, there's several ways to do so.
- One could argue that the HOF should increase its de facto standard for admission. I can't really argue with that because it's a matter of aesthetics. I like a somewhat consistent standard across time eras rather than a Hall that has proportionately greater representation from 1900-1970 than it does from 1970-onward. If you want to advocate a more select Hall, then that's just a different assumption. However, I'd prefer that someone expressly state that assumption -- don't just dismiss a large number of Morris' comps as "borderline Hall of Famers or outright mistakes."
- Career Wins and W-L records aren't the appropriate way to analyze starting pitchers. This would be an especially fruitful line of analysis for Jack Morris given his career e.r.a. plus of 105. I'm more skeptical than most that the luck doesn't tend to even out after an entire career.

I'm not even aiming to convince others that Morris definitely should be in the HOF, but let's at least admit he's debateable, a borderline case in either direction. To state that he's not a reasonable candidate or has no business being a Hall of Famer seems to overstate the conclusion to me.

Of course, I did still enjoy both this individual article and the series as a whole.
   5. tangotiger Posted: January 08, 2003 at 01:20 AM (#608210)
Following what I did for Shuey and Stanton in the other article, here are the breakdowns for Blyleven and Morris in various leveraged situation

NIBB/600PA K/600PA HR/600PA $H

40 105 15 0.300

36 105 12 0.288

40 112 15 0.261

Blyleven was pretty consistent, except when it came time to balls in play, either he crumbled, or his fielders did. He had 744 PAs in high-leverage situations.

37 88 15 0.246

46 91 15 0.261

55 97 15 0.268

Morris changed his pitching style as the pressure mounted. He drops hiss walks, drops his Ks, and the number of balls in play that turns into outs also drops. The last part may have to do with Morris changing his pitching style. He had 558 high-leverage PAs.
   6. Charles Saeger Posted: January 08, 2003 at 01:20 AM (#608211)
Lenny -- well, you're right. I ran a binomial distribution, and the chances of this happening randomly is 0.2%. I seriously overestimated the coin toss range.

I checked over at BP (I did not look there when I wrote the article), and Blyleven was even after he joined Pittsburgh. I took a quick look at the Retrosheet logs for 1974 (he only pitched 4 no decisions that year, so it meant that those could not be the reason), and it looks like he may have had some weird support issues. His ERA in losses was about 3.90 that year, which is only a bit above league average (3.62).
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2003 at 01:21 AM (#608281)
Stieb goes in before we think about electing Morris (and I'm not really sold on Stieb, either).
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 12, 2003 at 01:21 AM (#608287)
Since we're talking about 80s pitchers with hall of fame credentials, why isn't anyone talking about me?

Ha! Ha! Stop it, Paul! You're Kilgusing us!

   9. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: January 13, 2003 at 01:21 AM (#608301)
I'm not a statistician, but isn't Blyleven's excellence make him likely to be the 1/1000 case of bad luck? Any pitcher WORSE than Blyleven could never have lasted as a long as he did with such bad W-L performance relative to peripherals. This is the conflict of two different principles: A) Earth is not the center of the universe, aka, the special case is the least likely explanation and B)Our planet is at the 1-in-a-million orbit location because otherwise life could never have existed.

Either you argue "Blyleven couldnt have been 1 in a 100 because the odds are, well 1-in a 100". Or you argue "Blyleven must be the 1 in a 100 because otherwise he wouldnt be Blyleven". I lean towards the latter.
   10. Bill Posted: January 13, 2003 at 01:21 AM (#608310)
   11. Bill Posted: January 13, 2003 at 01:21 AM (#608311)
I've read Bill James backwards & forwards, but this comparison of Blyleven & Morris has to be one of the most convoluted arguments I've ever come across! Did you watch baseball in the 80s?! Anybody who was going up against Jack Morris knew that they were going to be in a battle that day. Jack was an extremely valuable player because he was a bullpen saver. Even "Captain Hook" left him in the when the game was on the line. He was conistently among the leaders in innings pitched for a decade - & that's because his managers knew that even after 7 or 8 innings, he was as good as anyone they had in the bullpen. Guys, it's a team game & Jack's contributions to his teams go beyond the numbers. Personally, I don't care whether either of these guys gets in the hall of fame. They were both terrific pictures for a very long time, consistently among the best when they pitched. I'd be happy to visit Cooperstown & read about the accomplishments of either of these guys. They both gave me many fond memories & both should be justifiably proud of their long & distinguished careers. If you have to spend this much time obsessing over which of these guys is better, then there wasn't a hell of a lot of difference between them. Sometimes you've just got to get the pencil out of your ass!
   12. Charles Saeger Posted: January 14, 2003 at 01:22 AM (#608358)
Boy, I thought I wasn't being convoluted. Blyleven's bulk numbers are 3-5 years of peak Koufax better than Morris's. That's hard to understand, I grant you.

As someone who remembers baseball in the 1980s, Morris was a good pitcher, sure, and he had a huge rep. But Roger Clemens had a bigger rep. Fernando! had a bigger rep. Dave Stewart had a bigger rep; maybe it is from the camera alone, but I always thought Stewart's stare as he threw the ball should scare the hell out of a hitter. Bret Saberhagen had a big rep, about as big as Morris's. Orel Hershiser had as big a rep as Morris's.

I think only one of those men is a Hall of Famer. It's not Morris.
   13. Charles Saeger Posted: January 17, 2003 at 01:24 AM (#608436)
I'm not sure anyone is reading this anymore, so I may write this as another article.

I took a look at Bert Blyleven's numbers from 1970 to 1977, the time when BP shows him as being about 25 wins, more or less, worse than he should have been.

I went ahead and came up with PyW-L for each year based on the number of runs scored in Blyleven's starts, not the team overall number. There's about an 84 run shortfall, so Blyleven, when I look at it this way, is -17 wins, not -25. That tells us some of the flaw, but not enough.

I looked at each start from 1974 to 1977, and looked at Blyleven's numbers at each number of runs scored, and whether he won or lost.

When Blyleven won, 59 starts, he had a 1.43 ERA, 5.81 runs/game support, a $H of .239, HR/9 of 0.35, BB/9 of 2.11 and K/9 of 7.47. He threw 8.62 innings/start.

When Blyleven lost, 55 starts, he had a 4.24 ERA, 2.00 runs/game support, a $H of .302, HR/9 of 0.84, BB/9 of 2.94 and K/9 of 7.16. He threw 7.41 innings/start.

When Blyleven did not win or lose, 24 starts, he had a 3.54 ERA, 4.63 runs/game support, a $H of .305, HR/9 of 0.83, BB/9 of 3.07 and K/9 of 7.13. He threw 7.21 innings/start.

In the pitcher-only numbers, Blyleven's numbers did not change much whether or not he won, lost or did neither. Indeed, his ERA when he lost was not much worse than the AL overall mean in this time (3.62 in 1974, 3.78 in 1975, 3.52 in 1976 and 4.06 in 1977), even more so when you know that each year Blyleven played in a mild hitters' park (PPF always over 100).

He did walk more men and allow more home runs, but the differences in of themselves should only mean about another run of ERA. We still must look to see where 1.50 to 2.00 runs went, and that was because his fielders ($H) were worse when he lost. You would think that should be so, but this is where most of the difference is, this and run support. It isn't Bert throwing more groundballs -- his home run rate went up and his GDP rate (even fixing for runners and balls in play) plummeted.

Thus, Blyleven had 79 starts in this time when he did not win. That's about 2.5 years ... let's make that a line:

32 GS, 10 CG, 232 IP, 232 H, 986 BFP, 22 HR, 119 R, 104 ER, 77 BB, 184 SO, 4.03 ERA, 0-22 W-L.

Clearly, Blyleven was a tough-luck case. Still, Pythaport Won-Lost Percentage said he should have won more games ...

I think I found why. It's a bad skew with 4 runs of support. In those 14 games, Blyleven was 6-7 with a 4.24 ERA. Going 0 to 10 and over, that was his highest ERA at any number of runs scored except for his one start with 9 runs scored (he went 7.2 innings and allowed 4 runs, all earned).

He was 0-11 with a 2.65 ERA when his opponents shut him out, 11 games.

He was 6-11 with a 1.61 ERA when his teammates scored one run, 19 games.

He was 2-13 with a 2.75 ERA when his teammates scored two runs, 18 games.

He was 10-10 with a 2.61 ERA when his teammates scored three runs, 24 games.

Again, he was 6-7 with a 4.24 ERA when his teammates scored four runs, 14 games.

He was 9-3 with a 3.38 ERA when his teammates scored five runs, 19 games.

He was 18-0 with a 2.84 ERA when his teammates scored six or more runs, 25 games.

He didn't pitch all that well when his teammates scored four runs. When you see that he did pitch well when his teammates scored 3 and 5 runs (19-13), it is but a fluke. Blyleven's flaw in this time was that he was too consistent.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.3435 seconds
59 querie(s) executed