Free Bert Blyleven from the HOF writer’s ignorance.

He was a crybaby who was despised by some of his own teammates and half of the city. Most famous moment was when he went into a fetal position on the mound when a plane flew over the stadium. He didn’t get right back up but laid there for no particular reason except to show his fear of and angst for the plane. Another famous moment was his lewd behavior to female reporters in the lockerroom…including taking his towel off and making sexually suggestive remarks. What a class act!

He could be the template for the overpaid self absorbed professional athlete that is now common place.

Blyleven’s supporters have developed a number of statistically based arguments in support of his HOF candidacy, arguments that purport to show what Bert would have done had he not labored on mediocre teams that gave him weak run support. They make a compelling argument that Blyleven’s pedestrian W-L record would have been better if his mediocre teams had been better – but that’s not really proving much, is it? Any pitcher would benefit from playing on better teams. The question Blyleven’s supporters can never answer is why Blyleven didn’t do better when he DID pitch for good teams?

By my count Blyleven had 8 seasons where he pitched for teams that either won 90+ games or were serious contenders for their division title (‘70, ‘77 – ‘80, ‘87-’89). These teams had an aggregate .562 winning percentage and won two World Series, 3 division titles and had three 2nd place finishes. Here’s Bert’s line for these eight seasons:

100-83 W-L, .546 WP, 3.55 ERA

Bert actually had a lower winning percentage than his teams. He won a pathetic 38.3% of his starts. And he routinely posted records for these teams no better(or even worse) than the likes of Dick Woodson, Jim Hughes, Joe Decker and Doyle Alexander.

There’s really no need to speculate about what Bert might have done had he pitched on better teams (Bert, like anyone else, would have fared better). What’s important is what Bert did when he actually had the opportunity to pitch for good teams, and that’s the problem with his HOF qualifications.

In reality he was 4-2 in the WS, including 2 complete game wins in the ‘84 series (2.00 ERA) and went 2-0 (1.17 ERA) in the ‘91 series. He struggled in the ‘92 event I’ll grant you, but to only point out the classic 10 inning complete game in the ‘91 series is telling only part of the story.

For the record both Blyleven and Morris should be in the Hall of Fame, in my humble opinion.

There’s a bunch of us that would start a Stieb for the hall campaign if we thought we’d get any support elsewhere. You could start by looking at the run support he got (even in the winning seasons) vs. the average. I remember it was criminal how little support he got for his starts. And if you asked a lot of managers from that era, they would have chosen Stieb over Morris in a heartbeat.

Morris in the HOF but not Stieb? The idea makes me sick.

Courtesy of baseball reference, here are Morris’s *career* highs combined to a theoretical single best year:

21-8, 293 2/3 IP, 20 CG, 6 SHO, 232 K, 3.05 ERA 133 ERA+

So if you combined the best years of Morris’s career into one uber year, he was 21-8, 3.05, 33 percent better than the rest of the league.

Bert Blyleven had *ten years* in his career that were as good or better, except in the W-L column. Innings pitches, ERA, ERA+, strikeouts, whatever you want. There were ten years were Bert Blyleven was a better pitcher than Jack Morris on the best theoretical year of his life.

However, I recall a writer describing his qualifications for the Hall of Fame, and he said it was like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s comment on pornography – he knew it when he saw it.

The fact is, during the 1980s, Jack Morris was the pitcher you would want on the mound if it was a big game. You can present good numbers to show that Clemens would have had a better season in 1987. But if you asked major league managers who they would want on the mound in a big game, my guess is Jack Morris would get more votes than anybody else during the 1980s.

OK, in 1992 he got a ton of support and had an ERA over 4. But he still won 21 games and that is the point – he would manage to win and he would go deep into games.

Joe, you pick Nolan Ryan and I’ll pick Jack Morris. I’ll feel real good about my chances.

Both of them told me that they were glad he played for the Tiger’s, because they would never want to face him.

In big games he always came through. Am I saying his the greatest pitcher ever? No I am not.

But, he had 254 Wins, 3 WS rings and won when it counted. We are not talking about a Terrell Davis who played 4 years, one on IR and out.