Bert Blyleven for all the Right Reasons

Because Archie would be disappointed if I didn’t do this for one of Holland and Minnesota’s finest:

Yes, Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award and pitched in only two All-Star Games. But pitching for much of his career for lousy teams, the great curveball pitcher won 287 games and threw 60 shutouts. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for any pitcher in any era.

I am happy that Tim Cowlishaw recognizes that Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Fame talent. Most sportswriters don’t. Of course, he seems to base his feeling that Blyleven is eligible for the Hall based on his 287 wins. Most sportswriters think that wins matter. They don’t.

And they especially don’t in the case of Blyleven.

The dude had 60 shutouts. That means that fully 21% of his “wins” were recorded because he was so good that he kept the other team from scoring ALL GAME LONG. No image, as a thought experiment, that the bullpens on his teams were just a little bit better. Like less than 1% better. As in, just enough better that over the long haul Blyleven doesn’t finish at 287 wins but at 300 and we don’t talk about this because d-bag sportswriters anoint him into the Hall of Fame because he “won” 300 games.

Wins are so worthless as a determinant of a single player’s ability that I start to go wild when people use them as a measure of quality. Like seriously crazy. Warewolf crazy. I start to get hot, sweaty, hairy, want punch people in the face and eat them…but only if I read to the end of the article. These days I can tell the signs and just look away.

Since wins aren’t meaningful numbers, what are? Glad you asked. These numbers are:

158 ERA+, 2.52 ERA, 1.117 WHIP, 258 Ks, 325 IP. When he was 22 years old.

142 ERA+, 2.66 ERA, 1.142 WHIP, 249 Ks. The very next year.

Bert went on to have four more years of ERA+s over 133.

Blyleven is fifth all-time in strikeouts.

He has an ERA+ seven points better than strikeout leader and Hall of Famer Nolan Ryan.

He is 13th all-time in innings pitched.

He was an awesome postseason pitcher, managing to win two World Series and record a 2.57 postseason ERA.

Those numbers matter.

Why am I even arguing this, you may ask? Because it’s the principle of the thing…I don’t care that somehow this Cowlishaw character came to the right conclusion about Blyleven as long as he did it for the wrong reasons. Baseball is the thinking man’s sport and goddamn it, it’s time that baseball writers started doing some thinking!

(Starting to get hot…want to punch someone in the face…must…turn…away…)

Hall of Fame Talk: Amusing to Me, Infuriating to Others (Nils)

MLB Hall of Fame results are out next week. Let's see how Tim Cowlishaw decided to vote.

I voted for five players, although the only one I know is going to make it for sure is first-year eligible Rickey Henderson.

[OK. Henderson is fine.]

The funny thing is that I voted for three others who will either make it or come very close – outfielders Andre Dawson and Jim Rice and pitcher Bert Blyleven....

[I'm not sure why that's funny, but I am curious to see why Cowlishaw thinks that these three are Hall of Famers....]

I think Rice, Dawson and Blyleven all are borderline Hall of Famers.

[Oh, OK. Kind of like Hall of Famers. Except not. Sold!]

Yes, Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award and pitched in only two All-Star Games. But pitching for much of his career for lousy teams, the great curveball pitcher won 287 games and threw 60 shutouts. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for any pitcher in any era.

[Then he's no longer borderline, I guess? Let's just move on. I'm sure that Nils is reading this now shouting "Borderline?!? Oh, I'll show you borderline!"

The arguments for and against (although most of them all kind of sound like "against" arguments to me) Rice and Dawson have been well-documented, but I liked how Cowlishaw contrasted them with his pro-Tim Raines arguments.]

Rice had a shortened run, but it was in impressive one. He was top 10 in American League slugging eight times, top 10 in homers seven times, top 10 in OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) six times.

[OK...]

Dawson was a much superior outfielder (eight Gold Gloves) who had some great hitting seasons that went largely unnoticed in Montreal. I loved in 1987 when he told the Cubs he would play for them at any salary. That earned him an MVP award while playing for a bad team.

[THAT earned him the MVP? Really? Him saying that earned him an MVP? Hall of Fame plaque, please!]

[Raines] had 2,605 career hits, and 3,000 hits always has been Hall worthy. Why didn't Raines get there? Oh, perhaps because he led the National League in walks seven straight years from 1982 through 1988. He also led the NL in singles, doubles and triples those seven seasons. No player in major league history has a better stolen base percentage than Raines' 84.7.

[A lot of "led the NL for seven straight seasons" in there, as well as a "No player in major league history has a better...." Sounds a lot more Hall-ish than "top 10 in the American League," or "[telling] the Cubs he would play for them at any salary," right?]