PDA

View Full Version : Blyleven and Carter still screwed


kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 02:41 PM
Ozzie Smith is in the hall as he deserves to be but come on, Gary Carter came close. What's up with the lack of support for Bert Blyleven? The guy won 287 games.

Paulwny
01-08-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Ozzie Smith is in the hall as he deserves to be but come on, Gary Carter came close. What's up with the lack of support for Bert Blyleven? The guy won 287 games.

Although it's not right, 300 is the magic number.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Although it's not right, 300 is the magic number.

What about guys like Rube Marquad that won 201 or Bob Lemon and Hal Newhouser who both won 207?

Paulwny
01-08-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


What about guys like Rube Marquad that won 201 or Bob Lemon and Hal Newhouser who both won 207?

I agree, but they set a new number criteria to get in. Soon 500 hrs. won't be enough.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 02:55 PM
Blyleven was never considered a great until after he retired. Blyleven only appeared in two All-Star games - 1973 and 1985. For years and years, he was good but not great. He would have been a great #2 man - eating innings was his specialty, but noone would have considered him an ace. His numbers, while they look great by today's standards, were just good in the 70s. His 287 wins are pretty impressive, considering he pitched for some pretty bad teams, but I think the writers think of all those wins coming more from pitching for 22 years than because he was great.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Blyleven was never considered a great until after he retired. Blyleven only appeared in two All-Star games - 1973 and 1985. For years and years, he was good but not great. He would have been a great #2 man - eating innings was his specialty, but noone would have considered him an ace. His numbers, while they look great by today's standards, were just good in the 70s. His 287 wins are pretty impressive, considering he pitched for some pretty bad teams, but I think the writers think of all those wins coming more from pitching for 22 years than because he was great.

Blyleven had the bad luck of playing on a lot of poor teams and in hitters parks. You put him on some good teams and he has no trouble reaching 300, he's in. And what about Don Sutton? People said he was always a number two, good for a long time but not an ace. He got in the hall because he had 300+ wins. Blyleven is being held back because he didn't get 13 more wins?

Paulwny
01-08-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
His 287 wins are pretty impressive, considering he pitched for some pretty bad teams, but I think the writers think of all those wins coming more from pitching for 22 years than because he was great.

It's hard to rate pitchers who played on bad clubs. Many have their era's elevated because their left in the game longer, usually a bad team=a bad bull pen.
It's a tough call.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


It's hard to rate pitchers who played on bad clubs. Many have their era's elevated because their left in the game longer, usually a bad team=a bad bull pen.
It's a tough call.

Bad fielders too, they can have a lot of effect on ERA too.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Blyleven had the bad luck of playing on a lot of poor teams and in hitters parks. You put him on some good teams and he has no trouble reaching 300, he's in. And what about Don Sutton? People said he was always a number two, good for a long time but not an ace. He got in the hall because he had 300+ wins. Blyleven is being held back because he didn't get 13 more wins?


I think 300 wins is a B.S. benchmark. It's a round number, nothing more. And wins is a terrible way to judge how good a pitcher is, anyway. Clemens won 22 games last season, but he wasn't the best pitcher in the AL.

I don't think Sutton belongs in the Hall, either. There should be more to being a Hall-of Famer than just having a long career.

Don Sutton career ERA - 3.26
Bert Blyleven career ERA - 3.31
Charlie Hough career ERA - 3.75

You knock off those two ill-advised years that Hough pitched for Florida, and Hough's numbers come down to close to Blyleven's and Sutton's, and his career is still just as long. Does he belong in the hall?

All three of those guys were good. I just hesitate to call them great.

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz



I think 300 wins is a B.S. benchmark. It's a round number, nothing more. And wins is a terrible way to judge how good a pitcher is, anyway. Clemens won 22 games last season, but he wasn't the best pitcher in the AL.

I don't think Sutton belongs in the Hall, either. There should be more to being a Hall-of Famer than just having a long career.

Don Sutton career ERA - 3.26
Bert Blyleven career ERA - 3.31
Charlie Hough career ERA - 3.75

You knock off those two ill-advised years that Hough pitched for Florida, and Hough's numbers come down to close to Blyleven's and Sutton's, and his career is still just as long. Does he belong in the hall?

All three of those guys were good. I just hesitate to call them great.

I think over a career wins become a pretty good way to rate a pticher but one season is a completely different story.

I see you place quality on a much higher level importance than quantity. What would you say should happen when you have a guy whose career is extremely short?

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 03:28 PM
Well, it depends on how short. I don't think that Mark Fidrych belongs in the hall, if that's what you mean, but I do think Koufax belongs, and I would consider voting for Luis Tiant because for a while he was simply amazing, and he was pretty old (I believe 27 or 28) when he broke into the league. I would say that if you can put together 5-10 years where you're at the top of the heap, one of the best there is, then I'd vote for you.

Paulwny
01-08-2002, 03:34 PM
One sports writer's view.


http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,4807179,00.html

kermittheefrog
01-08-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, it depends on how short. I don't think that Mark Fidrych belongs in the hall, if that's what you mean, but I do think Koufax belongs, and I would consider voting for Luis Tiant because for a while he was simply amazing, and he was pretty old (I believe 27 or 28) when he broke into the league. I would say that if you can put together 5-10 years where you're at the top of the heap, one of the best there is, then I'd vote for you.

So in that case what do you think of Dale Murphy?

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 06:24 PM
Murphy from 1981 to 1987 was probably the best hitter in the National League. I would absolutely vote for him. The fact that he dropped off the map after that is disturbing, but for a time he was simply outstanding, a five-tool player that could do it all.

RichH55
01-09-2002, 03:57 PM
On the Hall..I like to error on the side of exclusitivity. Bert and Sutton...No....I'd probably vote no on Murphy, but yes on Dawson so go figure.....Every year I ask myself how is Gary Carter not in the Hall of Fame....that's just a shame, but I guess betting and bad hair are the best reasons to keep a guy out in these modern times, but on Pete and Shoeless Joe I never knew there was a morals clause, especially when Ty Cobb is the first guy you let in...c'est la vie