Free Bert Blyleven
Posted: March 11th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 64 Comments »
While doing final rewrite of my book — and I’m STILL trying to getting those last words right — and writing an SI cover story and running around the country like mad for, you know, my day job, I have also been tinkering with this rather extensive Hall of Fame piece. I know, this blog absolutely does not need another Hall of Fame piece. But this one comes at the Hall of Fame from a whole other angle, one that considers if maybe the Hall of Fame needs to be a whole lot bigger for modern players. in this one, Andre Dawson and Jim Rice and, yes, Jack Morris look a lot more like Hall of Famers. It’s kind of a devil’s advocate thing to the 3,403,483 words I’ve already written on the subject.
Of course, in this Hall of Fame light Bert Blyleven looks even more like a Hall of Famer. There has never been any doubt about Bert’s place in the Hall of Fame on this blog — I figure I’m standing right behind this guy — but when you look at the Hall of Fame in a bigger way, I don’t see how you can help but think “HOW IN THE HELL IS BERT BLYLEVEN NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME?” And now that he is the pitching coach of a Holland team that just stunned the hell out of the Dominican Republic in the World Baseball Conundrum, you have to believe there are no questions left, no room for doubters, put the guy in already. I mean, seriously.
5th all-time in strikeouts.
9th all-time in shutouts.
27th all-time in wins.
A 2.59 ERA in postseason.
A 2.35 ERA in the World Series.
Greatest curveball ever.
Pitching coach for one of great upsets ever.
Damn. Free Bert Blyleven.
* * *
The general point of this exercise is something that’s probably pretty obvious to everyone: The Hall of Fame has been much, much, much, much, much, much kinder to players from the 1920s and 1930s than it has been to players or more recent vintage. That’s obvious, and there are obvious reasons for it too.
1. Those players got two chances to get into the Hall of Fame. They had the writers, and then they had a Veteran’s Committee that was, at various times, well, let’s call it “generous.”
2. The Hall had fuzzier entry requirements in the early years. Those requirements, as we have seen, are plenty fuzzy now, but the standards for earlier players were not set.
3. There was was romance to baseball in those days that cannot be regained. There was little footage of those players, and statistics were not nearly as advanced. Players were chosen more from the heart.
There are other reasons too. But my point is this: While I always knew that players from the 1920s and 1930s are better represented in the Hall of Fame, I never knew to what extreme. And, let me tell you: It is extreme.
Let’s compare 1930 and 1980. Now, you probably know that 1930 was a great, great offensive year. Bill Terry was the last National Leaguer to hit .400 that year. Hack Wilson drove in 191 RBIs. Someone named Adam Comoromsky had 23 triples. And so on. And 1980 was not a particularly good offensive year, though that is the year George Brett challenged .400. But for our purposes here, there are bigger difference between 1930 and 1980.
– In 1930 there were 16 teams. In 1980 there were 24 teams. Keep that in mind — 50 percent more teams in 1980.
– In 1930, black players — African Americans, dark-skinned Latins and so on — were not eligible to play in the Majors.
OK, with that, here is a list of the Hall of Fame Players from 1930 and 1980:
First base
1930 (5): Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Bill Terry, Jim Bottomley, George Sisler.
1980 (3): Eddie Murray, Tony Perez, Rod Carew.
Second base
1930 (3): Charlie Gehringer, Frankie Frisch, Tony Lazzeri.
1980 (2): Joe Morgan, Paul Molitor.
Shortstop
1930 (3)*: Travis Jackson, Joe Cronin, Rabbit Maranville.
1980 (2): Robin Yount, Ozzie Smith.
*It’s actually four, but Leo Durocher, while he did get enough at-bats, did not get in as a shortstop.
Third base
1930 (3): Joe Sewell, Freddie Lindstrom, Pie Traynor.
1980 (2): Mike Schmidt, George Brett.
Outfield
1930 (15): Hack Wilson, Babe Ruth, Chuck Klein, Goose Goslin, Al Simmons, Chick Hafey, Mel Ott, Earl Averill, Harry Heilmann, Kiki Cuyler, Heine Manush, Lloyd Waner, Paul Waner, Earle Combs, Sam Rice.
1980 (4): Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, Rickey Henderson.
Catcher
1930 (4)*: Gabby Hartnett, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Rick Ferrell
1980 (3): Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk, Johnny Bench.
*Actually, it’s five if you count Al Lopez, but he went in primarily as a manager. Which brings up a whole other point: I never realized how preposterous it is that Al Lopez was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a manager. He never won a World Series. Can you be a Hall of Fame manager without winning the World Series? He managed the ‘54 Cleveland Indians, who did win 111 games but then, of course, got swept by the Giants in perhaps the greatest choke job in World Series history. Later he managed the Go Go White Sox, who lost to the Dodgers in the ‘59 World Series. I guess Lopez is a rare case of someone getting elected for his lifetime achievement — he was a solid catcher for a long time and he was a solid manager who finished second a lot (10 times in his career). However, it does make you think that Whitey Herzog has a helluva case.
Pitchers
1930 (14): Lefty Grove, Dazzy Vance, Red Ruffing, Carl Hubbell, Burleigh Grimes, Ted Lyons, Jesse Haines, Red Faber, Herb Pennock, Eppa Rixey, Waite Hoyt, Lefty Gomez, Pete Alexander, Dizzy Dean.
1980 (12): Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, Dennis Eckersley, Jim Palmer, Goose Gossage, Tom Seaver, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers.
OK, that makes 33 everyday Hall of Famers from 1930 and only 16 from 1980. Half. Think about how amazing that is for a moment — we’re supposed to accept that there were twice as many Hall of Famers in 1930, even though there were significantly fewer teams, even though black players did not play, even though baseball players in 1980 had 50 years of evolution in order to get better. It’s ludicrous. And more pitchers from 1930 than 1980 too? Really?
Of course the way that most people would respond to this absurdity — the way I would respond — is to say that the 1930 standard is ridiculous and they should throw people out of the Hall of Fame. It’s not like anyone but family would miss Freddie Lindstrom and Jim Bottomley and Jesse Haines — few people even realize they are in there now.
But let’s face it for a moment: They’re not throwing people out of the Hall. So,the question for me is: Are my standards simply too high for the Hall of Fame? I mean, it’s true that almost half of the 33 players in the Hall are Veteran’s Committee choices, and it’s easy to say: Hey, the writers didn’t vote in Earle Combs and Travis Jackson and Rick Ferrell and Eppa Rixey. If the Hall of Fame wants players like that in the Hall, they need to re-think the Veteran’s Committee or lower than 75% entry requirement or whatever. At the end of the day, writers may vote but it’s the Hall of Fame itself that establishes the standards.
But I wonder if that’s entirely right. Even if you took out the Veteran’s Committee choices — and some of those were pretty clear misses by the writers — it still means that the writers voted for more everyday players from 1930 than 1980, and that just seems way out of whack for me. True, there are no laws that state there are the same number of Hall of Fame players in every era. I do realize that. It is not impossible that there were more Hall of Fame caliber players in 1930 than in 1980. But when considering the circumstances of the times, when considering how many more teams were around in 1980 and how much more open the game was, I find it pretty much impossible to believe.
Will this change the way I vote? I don’t know. It’s just something I’ve been thinking about. I still think Andre Dawson’s on-base percentage was too low, and Jack Morris was a durable but not exceptional pitcher, and Steve Garvey simply had too many holes in his game. Of course, I also believe in some others from the era who have not gotten much Hall of Fame support — Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Dan Quisenberry, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans. The only thing I do know for certain is that Holland pitching coach Bert Blyleven should be in.
Loading ...
I think it was Bill James who wrote how over the decades, as the quality of play increases, it becomes harder for stars to dominate relative to their peers. So maybe in 1930 there were more dominating players than you would expect in more recent years. Still, I agree it’s mighty fishy that 1930 beats 1980 at EVERY position.
I think a big part of it is something you touched on – people find it hard to see the numbers in context, and out of context those offensive numbers from the ’30s look AMAZING. Everyone hit .300, so everyone must have been good! What’s wrong with those bums from the ’80s hitting .260?
The miracle of OPS+ has thus far eluded the masses.
Here’s what’s interesting: Bert Blyleven is far more famous for not being in the Hall of Fame. I mean, who knows Phil Neikro’s stats? Has anyone written extensively in the past 5 years on Dave Winfield?
The standard deviation of talent shrinks with time. Because we set certain standards as great (.300 hitter) that don’t change over time, it was easier to look great in the past.
As soon as I saw the Dutch win, I was excited for a Joe post about Bert. Thanks for not letting me down!
I’m pretty sure that Al Lopez is in mostly because he was the Only Manager Who Beat The Yankees – he managed both of the non-Yankee teams that won AL pennants from 1949-1964, and they were with different franchises.
I haven’t even read the article yet. I just wanted to comment first that if you ever stop writing HOF posts for this blog, I will cry myself to sleep Joe.
I think the reason why so many 1930 players are in is because Stephen A. Smith wasn’t around to enlighten the public with his inquisitive baseball mind.
“KEY-key CUY-ler?!? You GOT to be ki-ding me. C’mon! The man only had THIRT-teen Home Runs in Nineteenhundredandthiry. And you’re gonna sit there and tell ME that he’s on the same level as a Pie Traynor? You GOT to be ki-ding me. I SAW Nap Lajoie play. Rube Wad-DELL would strike Kiki Cuyler in THREE pit-chiz. KEY-KEY CUY-LER?? please. You GOT to be ki-ding me. I’m Stephen A. Smith, and that’s the four-one-one.”
Bless you, Stephen A. You are the light of virtue in an impure world.
Wait, Joe’s written about the Hall of Fame before?
And who’s Bert Blyleven. Is he that guy who dropped an F-bomb on a broadcast of a Twins game thinking it was a segment they were taping?
http://www.lemonzoo.com/funny_videos/16411/Bert_Blyleven_Screwing_Up_On_Live_TV.html
He played baseball?
“Bert Blyleven is far more famous for not being in the Hall of Fame. I mean, who knows Phil Neikro’s stats? Has anyone written extensively in the past 5 years on Dave Winfield?”
Before Enos Slaughter got in there was a ton of copy about how “Country” belonged. Now? Not so much.
Maybe they should find the Frankie Frisch of the 1980s, put him in charge of the Vets’ Committee for five years, and take care of business.
I just KNEW you’d put up a Blyleven post today after that Netherlands cinderella 1st round LOL
(and I’m glad you did)
Barking Madd,
That’s why I’d love to see the Bill Simmons idea of the Pyramid Hall of Fame implemented – gradually. The debate is currently focused on the marginal players, rather than the greatest ones (no, I’m not saying Blyleven isn’t great). The Pyramid Hall would foster debates about whether George Brett or Eddie Mathews should move up to Level 3.
Bellweather,
Cuyler’s nickname is pronouced like the first syllable of his last name (kite, not kiwi). If you were intentionally having Stephen A mispronounce the name, congratulations – that’s awesome.
How about simply requiring the writers to vote for a minimum number of players? They have a max (10) but no minimum. But if every writer was required to vote for, say, five players a few more will get in but also more would stay on the ballot for future consideration, which might have saved Quizenberry or Whitaker or Belle.
Personally, I don’t really have a problem with Morris or Dawson getting in since I think you can’t discuss the 80s without them and the HOF should be a museum about baseball. And I also have no doubt that Morris (and Kaat and John and El Presidente) was a better pitcher then Goose or Sutter. (Does ones view of Morris change if, instead of counting a CG as a CG, we call it a save instead, since he saved the bullpen? Now he has 254wins and 174 saves).
What did people think of Bill James’ suggestion to overhaul the selection process (see Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame)? This involved a series of votes by players, fans, media types, baseball front-office people, and baseball researchers, first to nominate a candidate and then to ratify (or not) the choices of the other groups (four of the five groups’ approval necessary for election).
Bob,
I’m not sure I’d like fans having a vote on the HOF.
Free Pete Rose.
Ian –
Not a good idea, IMHO.
I do think that empty ballots (i.e., no candidate voted for) should not be counted at all. Right now, the are considered part of the X total votes of which the player must receive 75%. That’s just stupid — I mean, why don’t they count the ballots of all those who *might* vote (i.e., those that are eligible to vote [10+ years in the BBWAA] but who don’t, for whatever reason [e.g., the NYTimes and other papers forbid their writers from voting on conflict of interest grounds]). Makes just as much sense.
But to require a minimum number of votes just means that eventually someone will get in because writers *had* to vote for *somebody*. Again, not a good idea, IMHO.
I would find that roughly similar to the Golf HoF. In that vote, there is a minimum percentage requirement (I believe it is currently 60%), but if nobody reaches that threshold, they induct the person with the most votes, regardless of that person’s percentage. (For example, that’s how Vijay Singh was elected.) Now, that’s REALLY dumb.
One thing is for certain….Bert Blyleven is a first ballot HOFer in the Dutch Baseball HOF!!
Go Netherlands! (or is it THE Netherlands, like THE Ohio State University?!)
Being the best player ever from a country, or possibly even a continent, should almost be enough by itself to merit Hall of Fame induction. Add in the fact that he was one of the all time great strikeout pitchers and it should be a no-brainer.
I get you totally. But I think the second chance aspect isn’t being played up enough. 1930 was 80 years ago. 1980 was 30 years ago. I think the fact that both of the players elected this year being active in 1980 speaks to the fact that more time needs to pass to truly be able to gage the 1980-1930 difference.
For perspective: A Player must be active 10 years in order to be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Said player must be inactive for five years before he can be voted on. 1980 was 30 years ago. Retirees in 1980 became eligible in 1985 and came off the ballot in 2000. 1980 rookies meeting the minimum active requirements became eligible for the BBWAA ballot in 1995. The coming election would be there last on the ballot (and this would be an extreme circumstance).
So, some guys As you said, almost half of those 33 from 1930 are Vets guys. For the most part, 1980 hasn’t experienced its second chance yet. Give 1980 another 50 years to pick up it’s missing 50% (17 guys). Henderson, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, Smith, Morris, John, Raines, Trammel, Parker, Murphy, Baines and Orosco were all on last year’s ballot and all active in 1980. That’s 13 guys which almost makes up for the disparity. True they won’t all make it – even with the Vets – but that’s just one year.
I ran the numbers on baseball-reference and it comes up with 493 players active in 1930 and 916 in 1980. That’s 54% more. I kind of also agree with the guy who mentioned Bill James’ thought that it might be harder to dominate the modern sport. The higher talent level may make it harder for the good to be great.
On the flip side, there may be 54% more players in 1980, but the mediocre guys in 1930 were probably better than the mediocre guys now. This is the watered down arguement. That would make it seem like 1980 should have more than 1930.
Time will tell.
I would lean against having fans vote on the HOF – at least, the HOF as it exists now; if we’re starting a new one, I’d be more open to the idea. ESPN runs polls every year at HOF voting time, and the only players who make the 75% cut are the incredibly obvious choices – Ripken, Gwynn, etc. Assuming those polls are representative of how the actual vote would go, the standard for modern players would be higher than the Frisch standard to an impossible degree, even moreso than it is now.
Maybe starting a new Hall and making it a Pyramid Hall would help with this problem – it would certainly help dispose of the idea that anyone worse than Willie Mays or Rogers Hornsby isn’t good enough.
I am not the first to say it, and I wont be the last.
Its the Hall of FAME! Not the Hall of Very Good.
You standards should be ridiculously high, and only the best of the very best should be in there. Just because mistakes have been made along the way doesn’t mean we should just throw in the towel and let in guys who were good, but not great.
You said it with Jack Morris – “durable but not exceptional”. Did people stop what they were doing to get to the ballpark on days he pitched? It just seems he was a good player with a few great starts, and that is what people remember.
Hall of FAME!
Trevor Hayes #20 –
You contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences:
#1: “The higher talent level may make it harder for the good to be great.”
#2: “On the flip side, there may be 54% more players in 1980, but the mediocre guys in 1930 were probably better than the mediocre guys now.”
Statement #1 is correct. In fact, Bill James’ formula for his “best of all time” in the Historical Abstract includes a number that increases over time to (attempt to) measure the increase in overall/average skill level over time. In other words, if Player A and Player B have identical stats, but Player A was born in 1860 and Player B was born in 1960, then Player B is the better player.
Statement #2 is nonsensical. Aside from its statistical inaccuracy (I don’t have time to go into detail, but the gist is that the entire bell curve of talent has shifted to the right over time), the reason you give, “the watered down argument” makes no sense at all.
Yes, there are more teams and thus more players now. But the available talent pool has actually increased faster than expansion. To take the two years in question, 1930 and 1980, the number of teams/players increased by 50%, as Joe points out. At the same time, the population of the USA went from roughly 122.8 million to 225.6 million, an increase of 84.5%
Furthermore, in 1930, black players were ineligible to play in the MLB; in 1980, they were eligible to play, and did so in significant numbers (cannot find 1980 numbers, but in 1975 they were 27% of all players). The number of foreign players, especially Latinos, also increased substantially.
So, simply put, the number of available MLB player roster positions increased by 50%. At the same time, the available talent pool increased by over 100% (population increase, plus black players, plus increase in Latino and other foreign-born players). If anything, the mediocre players of 1980 were MUCH better than the mediocre players of 1930 because there was so much more competition for available positions.
It’s Joe’s blog and who am I to complain about getting great stuff for free nearly every day….
But I’m so sick of the Hall of Fame that I’m ready to personally burn it to the ground.
I guess if Buck O’ Neil had been a friend of mine I’d take it more seriously. It’s a baseball museum for kids. It’s supposed to be fun.
David in NYC, #23: I don’t think anyone can prove or disprove which era had more mediocre MLB players. However, one thing you are not including in your assessment is that in 1930 playing baseball was THE SPORT in America. By 1980, football, basketball, tennis, golf etc were being played by a higher percentage of the available population – in my humble opinion.
Hallelujah!
I will be 41 this year, and I believe I’ve been making this argument for approximately 25 of those years. Just not as well. Or as widely read. So thank you, Joe. Even if it is just a devil’s advocate position.
Bert Blyleven is in the Belching Hall of Fame. He was inducted in 1998.
I just want to note that I sent the email re: Blyleven before I read this post. You may have had it finished first, but I like to think I helped get that Holland bit in there.
David in NYC, #23: I realize I contradicted myself. Hence saying, “On the flip side”. This phrase, which you quoted, refers to an opposite of what we just had.
But, you do make a fair point in the rest of your arguement.
It IS fun to argue about the Hall of Fame, of which Bert Blyleven should be a member. Bill James’ proposed HOF voting system allowed fans a voice but not enough power to get a player in without help from the other four groups of voters — media, players, scholars and a group I can’t remember. It was an interesting idea.
I didn’t want to muck up the SI-cover-post comments with Blyleven commentary, but I should have known it wouldn’t take long. Holland!
Also, Joe, if it’s possible (without risking another wholesale blog makeover), I wonder if it would be cool if you had a “Random” button up top, especially for new folks, so they could get a random burst of Posbrilliance from the archives? Esp. if the old Soul of Baseball blog was part of said archive . . .
“In 1930, black players — African Americans, dark-skinned Latins and so on — were not eligible to play in the Majors.”
True, but many are in the Hall of Fame. I think it fair to add Cool Papa Bell, Oscar Charleston, Martin Dihigo, Bill Foster, Josh Gibson, Judy Johnson, Pop Lloyd, Satchel Paige, Joe Rogan, Turkey Stearnes, Willie Wells, and Joe Williams (and possibly others I missed) to the list of 1930 Hall of Famers.
The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son…
Spud @ #10:
“Maybe they should find the Frankie Frisch of the 1980s, put him in charge of the Vets’ Committee for five years, and take care of business.”
You leave Joe Morgan out of this. Besides, all his teammates are already IN the hall. Except Concepcion and Cedeno…
As to the main post: if the voters and VC of nowadays were equivalent to the voters and VC judging those guys, Frank White would be in the Hall.
JOe-
We’re counting on you to stump for Vizquel when the time comes.
[...] bookmarks tagged ludicrous Free Bert Blyleven saved by 3 others UH1 bookmarked on 03/11/09 | [...]
Lopez was the only manager to win the AL pennant without running the Yankees from 1949 through 1964. And he did it twice, and with two different teams. The Yankees won 14 of 16, and Lopez beat them the other two. That alone doesn’t make him a HOFer, but it is a curious and interesting point in his favor.
See Gould’s essay on the evolutionary nature of baseball, and why it’s harder to stand out in modern times. The extreme wall hasn’t moved, really, but the entire crowd of players is standing closer to it.
[...] I hypothesised an answer to Joe Posnanski’s question as to why many more people who played in 1930 made the Hall of Fame versus the people who played in [...]
[...] Posnanski wonders why there are more Hall of Famers who played in 1930 than played in 1980: OK, that makes 33 everyday Hall of Famers from 1930 and only 16 from 1980. Half. Think about how [...]
Mark W.–when I was there, the locals actually just called it “Holland,” but it is THE Netherlands.
Joe Chanley–it’s “fame” as in the sense of worthy of fame/honor/recognition…and anyway, you are parroting bad sports radio people without actually making any kind of argument.
My thoughts are increasingly to a Big Hall–it does not hurt the Hall to be big, it makes fans happy that “their” guy got in, it rewards a variety of different kinds of great careers…no, we don’t put in Brad Radke. But I think if you can make an argument that anyone was a reasonable pick for the team of his time, he isn’t a bad choice. It’s not saying that we should repeat mistakes of the past, it’s saying we can honor a number of players.
That said, I would like to see the Pyramid or James’ idea of the Inner Hall.
Blyleven is actually the #4 guy on my “Not in the Hall of Fame But Should Be List.”
1) Buck O’Neil
2) Shoeless Joe
3) Pete Rose
4) Bert
He is the best player that I have seen play (born in 1971) and currently eligible who is not in.
The number of 1980 pitchers in the Hall compared to 1930 should be a scandal. 1980 even has Eck, Sutter, Gossage, and Rollie Fingers who in my mind are all questionable. In fact, where were all of the 1930 pitchers when the awesome offensive numbers were being put up. This still puts 1980 2 behind 1930. As for relievers who pitched in 1980, the only two who should be in IMO are Fingers and one who is not in, the Quiz!
Any popularity contest is flawed. However, I would rather sacrifice the BBs and Quisenberrys of the world if it meant keeping out the Earl Combs and Travis Jacksons. Unfortunately, we got the worst of both worlds.
My son came home from kindergarten last week and told me Pluto is no longer a planet. If Pluto can get tossed out of our solar system it shouldn’t be that hard to get Rick Ferrell, Freddie Lindstrom and Jesse Haines tossed out of the Hall.
Great post Joe. But there were 26 teams in 1980, not 24. Seattle and Toronto had teams starting in 1977.
So it’s actually more than 50% more teams between 1930 and 1980. 62.5% I think. (I’m not a brilliant reader when it comes to the math stuff.)
Cheers!
theSnydes3000 #42: Excellent point. And a funny one too.
One other factor that came into play with the 30s guys is WHEN the VC was looking at them, which for the most part was in the 60s, an era that depressed hitting stats.
I suspect, if we looked closely, we would find a number of Dead Ball Era pitchers who got in the HOF in the 40s and 50s who really weren’t that great either, but their stats looked awful good compared to the era when they were selected.
So in the 60s not only was Frisch able to say, hey I played with these guys and they were good, but he also was able to back his facts up with statistical proof. “Look, this guy hit .300 every year. Nowadays, these bums have one guy who barely hits .300 and leads the league in hitting”
Since this happened before we had in-depth statistical analysis he could say with a straight face that his guys were superior. This wouldn’t happen now. We understand park factors and other outside factors that affect hitting stats better now. So, for instance, 25 years from now when we look at the steroid era, I don’t think a bunch of marginal guys whose stats are superior to other eras are going to get in, because compared to their peers they weren’t all that good.
Bill James brought this point home to me in his First Historical Baseball Abstract, when he quite convincingly argued that Earle Combs was essentially the 1920s white version of Mickey Rivers. After that, I could never view 20s hitting stats the same.
theSnydes3000 | March 12th, 2009 at 1:24 am [#42]
My son came home from kindergarten last week and told me Pluto is no longer a planet. If Pluto can get tossed out of our solar system it shouldn’t be that hard to get Rick Ferrell, Freddie Lindstrom and Jesse Haines tossed out of the Hall.
===============
I don’t care who you’re for or against getting into the HOF, this is funny!
Re: “Its the Hall of FAME! Not the Hall of Very Good.”
“Fame” is a measure of popularity/notoriety, and NOT a synonym for “Excellence.” So people who use the “it’s not the Hall of Very Good” cliche inadvertently point out that the Hall, in its conception, does not purport to only showcase an elite level of on-field performance – there are other, less statistically demonstrable dimensions to the idea of “fame.”
So they are actually contradicting the very point they are trying to make.
Maybe this point has been made, but aren’t we jumping the gun a little? It’s likely that in 2050, the number of players from the 1980s will have caught up at least somewhat to earlier eras.
Ian wrote: Does ones view of Morris change if, instead of counting a CG as a CG, we call it a save instead, since he saved the bullpen? Now he has 254wins and 174 saves.
Do that, and Bert Blyleven has 287 wins and 242 saves, a better ERA and ERA+ and a much better postseason ERA. The real battle (if he’s not in by then) will be Blyleven versus Smoltz. Blyleven will have far more wins and shutouts, far more CG+Saves, better postseason ERA, probably more Ks (unless Smoltz turns into a knuckleballer and pitches another decade) but I bet Smoltz gets in much more easily.
As for comparison across eras, I look at it like this. Every time there is expansion, 100% of the pitchers who get called up are pitchers who weren’t quite good enough to make a roster without expansion. But some of the hitters were guys who didn’t quite hit enough and others were guys that didn’t quite field well enough. And the hitters who hit well enough but didn’t field well enough weaken the defense (as a whole) for pitchers who include some that already were not major league caliber a year or two earlier.
What this means is that with 122M population in 1930, and say 20% were excluded from playing by virtue of racial inequities, there were just under 100M players competing for 400 roster spots. And in 1980 there were 225M players competing for 650 roster spots (before you consider far more foreign born players in 1980). So the competition *had* to be tougher in 1980.
That means that 1930’s stats get inflated, because there were more guys on the field that would not have made it in 1980. Thus, the better players in the 1930s would get to feast on worse back of the rotation and bullpen pitching than the better players in 1980, and the better pitchers on some weaker hitters.
And that’s just for starters. How much off season training did Babe Ruth do? Not much at all. But by 1980 many players were staying in shape year round. They had arthroscopic surgery. Some previously life threatening or baseball disabling diseases had been conquered. When a great player got injured, chances were that he got back on the field sooner, or maybe got back on the field at all (e.g. Tommy John).
So of *course* the average 1980 player is better than the 1930 player. Then add in night games, relief specialists, travel across time zones, a longer season, all of which work to weaken all the players in 1980, so the 1980 star player plays against much much better competition than the 1930 star player. And stars need darkness against which to shine.
Net result, Bill James was right (no, really?). But as we’ve seen time and again, voters haven’t made the mental adjustment. The standard deviation of baseball talent has tightened up from the bottom, which masks the fact that players are better and, if anything, makes them seem worse. That’s not to say that Babe Ruth wouldn’t still have been awesome in 1980; he would have. And with the DH and far more money at stake and year round training I bet Ruth would have batted in almost every game and pitched every 5th game or so and even more solidified his claim to being the best player of all time. But Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris and Dale Murphy and Dewey and a lot of other guys we think of as belonging in the Hall of Very Good would have earned a spot in the HOF if they’d maintained their careers in the 1930s.
Finally, why rag on Steve Garvey? He played in bad hitter’s parks almost all of his career and yet had nine seasons where he got MVP consideration. He won four gold gloves (and did NOT win a GG the season he fielded 1.000 with 159 games played). Seven seasons he played every game. He batted .338 in the postseason and .393 in ten All Star games. He won two postseason series MVPs, two AS game MVPs, the Clemente award, and the Gehrig award. Do I think he belongs in the HOF? Not quite; like Dawson he never walked. But he has a better OBP than Dawson, as many seasons with some MVP consideration, performed infinitely better in All Star games and the post season, and was a great story for the fans starting with his time as a Dodgers bat boy with his father being the Dodgers spring training bus driver. And it’s a lot easier to hit in Montreal and Wrigley than it was in Dodger Stadium as it was configured during Garvey’s career. So if your MVP razor comes down on the good side of Dawson, I think it should come down on the good side of Garvey as well. And if I truly accept my earlier analyses, then both of them deserve enshrinement.
Nowadays, of course, with tarnish following divorce and bankruptcy, maybe Garvey is a little tarnished. So I guess the trick is to get into the HOF before the skeletons escape the closet.
Richard Aronson is right about opportunity — except that in 1980 there was more opportunity to make a good living (compared to the 1930’s) at occupations other than baseball — mastering the universe as a broker or a banker, or pro football, or basketball, or even hockey.
With respect to Al Lopez’s lifetime achievement award, at one time he held the record for most game played at catcher (1918g), just as Rick Ferrell had before him. Career longevity/durability at that position counts for something (though it won’t get Bob Boone into the Hall).
Bert Blyleven 339 career win shares; starting pitcher should have c. 300. Ryan 334, Jenkins 323, Ruffing 322, Sutton 319, Gibson 317, Rixey 315, Lyons and Palmer 312, Wynn 309, Hubbell 305, Eckersley 301, as well as 30 HofF pitchers (5 of them relievers) with totals UNDER 300.
[...] For a far more detailed description of why Blyleven belongs in the Hall, check out Joe Posnanski’s blog. [...]
Actually, things aren’t QUITE so bad for 1980. There are four more HofF players: 40-year-olds Carl Yazstremski and Willie Stargell, 42-year-old Willie McCovey, and Pete Rose. Technically, they qualify, bringing the total for 1980 to 31 (+ Blyleven and Rose [on the field], at least). Fewer than 1938-39, probably too few, but closer.
After all, six of the 53 [my use of bb-ref’s Play Index gets different results from yours, Joe} from 1930 played in 10 or fewer games (E. Collins, Greenberg, Dean, Appling, Bancroft, Pete Alexander).
1930 (the midpoint, more or less, of Frankie Frisch’s career) represents a height of Hall over-representation. By 1938-39, the number of Hall players had dropped to 36.
When the Veterans Committee voted many of those ’30s players(and a few ’20s players)- the committee was made up of many National League Sympaticos. I think the reason that George Kelly, Chick Hafey, Ross Youngs and many others were voted in was simply a reaction to:
A. The Junior League had won more World Series by the 60’s.
B. The Junior League also had many of the Greatest Players from 1915-1955 Babe Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Al Simmons, Mickey Cochrane, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Yogi Berra, Tris Speaker, Bob Feller.
So to counter those facts the Vets Committee voted in, mostly NL players who had high Batting Averages or played for pennant winning teams.
Adding Tim Raines — another no-doubter — to the 1980 class brings their total (with Blyleven and Rose) to 34, I think. Pretty close to the 36 HofF members who played (at least some) in 1938-9.
Q for another day: who are the 34-36 HofFer’s who will be on someone’s roster during 2009? (It seems as if at any time there are approximately a team full: that is, 25 “immortals” playing — at some point in their careers — and another 10 or so guys whose merit is debatable and who eventually get in.)
I found (and LOVED) the “Random” button. If it was there before, I’m embarrassed.
Standard deviations (SDs) are a statistical measure of the breadth of a selection of data points. If the SD for a set of numbers is low, it’s an indication that the various data points are fairly uniform; if it’s high, it shows there are greater differences among them. If you take baseball stats — say ERA and home runs per at bat — and compare different eras, players from an era with low SD would be harder to distinguish from one another; in an era with high SDs, there would appear to be more stars because there were more players considerably above the average.
The highest SDs in the history of the post-1900 game were posted in the 1920s. So it’s not too surprising that people looking at that era see so many outstanding players — there WERE more outstanding players. Not BETTER players than in another era, but better for their time, by the numbers.
BUT…there’s another thing about SDs. They are, to some extent, determined by the limitations of the numbers being measured. If you’re measuring the SD for ERA, for example, there is a lower limit to ERAs — nobody is going to go much below 2.00, ever — but there is a variable upper limit. In an era of low scoring, that upper limit is, say, 5.00 — anyone who’s over that by much is out of the league. Not so today, of course. The upper limit is somewhere well up in the sixes. This means that the SDs for ERA will be higher in eras of high run scoring and lower when runs are hard to come by.
In other words, high run scoring eras will produce larger SDs simply because there are more degrees of freedom for the numbers involved. And therefore, when you have a combination of small ball parks and a juiced baseball — which is what you had in the 1920s — you’re going to get greater extremes in performance than in eras like the 1960s, when offense is less.
And I think that’s why the 1920s show so damn many HOFers. When you have a guy like Freddy Lindstrom getting 231 hits in a season, TWICE, and hitting .311 lifetime, it kind of jumps out at you. In the 1960s, Lindstrom probably would have gotten 180 hits in those seasons and hit .280 lifetime, and nobody would even think about putting him in the HOF.
It’s the ball, stupid.
Despite the fact that every fiber in my being is telling me not to respond to yet another “Bert Blyleven Belongs in the Hall” column, I simply cannot resist.
Sure, the guy won 287 games. But…the REAL reason he remains a viable HOF candidate in the eyes of some misguided souls is, simply, this: He was a good but not great pitcher, who started a lot of games and got a lot of decisions, for a long, long time.
That’s it. Period.
Consider his first 10 years in the league: 10-9, 16-15, 17-17, 20-17, 17-17, 15-10, 13-16, 14-12, 14-10, and 12-5. Other than the fact that he probably set some sort of unofficial record for most consecutive seasons with 17 losses, there is nothing extraordinary about any of these seasons. Sure, he won 20 games in ‘73, but so did about 10 other guys.
What if I told you there was a pitcher during the same time frame who had a six year run of 23-11, 24-8, 20-9, 18-12, 18-13, and 22-10? Your initial impression would probably be “whoa, this guy’s in the HOF, right?” It is true his numbers are pretty darn good. Especially when you consider this guy’s career ERA of 3.14 (Blyleven’s, by the way, was 3.31).
Well, this guy is named Mike Cuellar. And the reason he isn’t in the HOF discussion, and Blyleven is (thanks to our friend Joe Posnanski), boils down to the central theme of this comment: Blyleven pitched longer.
Durability counts for something, but it’s not enough, in my humble opinion, for the HOF.
Paul
The “minimum” voting is a bad idea, in my opinion. However, if it is, as you suggested, to allow players more time on ballots for voters to think about, there are other options. For instance, have the regular vote. Say the voter votes for 2 players to get into the hall. Then, they are told to vote for the next 8 best to be on the ballot next year. That way, they can still get consideration as the years go on, with more advanced statistical tools in the future to vote with.
As for CGs = saves…sure, if a reliever could have come in in the 9th and gotten a save. If it was a CG loss, no. If it was a CG and the team won by 10, no. That’s not “saving” the bullpen from the possibility of losing the game, it’s just saving their arms a little. If that is, why not give an 8-inning start a percentage of a save? Or give a negative save to a pitcher who comes in without recording an out? If it would have resulted in a save had a closer come in, then yeah, good job. However, there is probably a much smaller number of “saves” for those complete games than the total amount of CGs.
Right when I heard THE Netherlands beat the Dominican Republic, my first thought was that Bert Blyleven should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame for coaching those pitchers. If he could pass his curveball on to just one more pitcher, what a legacy that would be.
Paul,
Wasn’t sure if that was sarcasm or not but you know wins isn’t a great way to evaluate a pitcher, right? And all of his other numbers – IP, CG, Sho, ERA, ERA+, K, WHIP are more then HOF worthy. Adjusting for leagues, Blyleven put up the same ERA as Warren Spahn. 12 times in 21 seasons he was top 10 in era+. Only 6 pitchers in baseball history have more seasons like that. Four of them (Young, W. Johnson, Alexander, Grove) stopped pitching before WWII. The other two are Clemens and Seaver. He was a better pitcher then HOFers like Ryan, Jenkins, Hunter, Drysdale etc.
Paul, some response to the Cuellar/Blyleven comparison.
Actually, there is something extraordinary about Blyleven’s 20-17 season in 1973, to take one example. At age 22, he led the league in shutouts, adjusted ERA, and strikeout/walk ratio, finishing 2nd in WHIP. He even got votes (7th) for Cy Young. (The next year, when Mike Cuellar finished 6th in Cy Young voting, Blyleven pitched more innings, had a better ERA [2.66 to 3.11], a better ERA+ [142 to 111], more strikeouts [249 to 106], a league-2nd best WHIP [1.14 to 1.26], and nearly [but not quite] matched Cuellar in shutouts and CG’s. But the Twins were a losing team when Bert didn’t pitch, and Cuellar went 22-10 for the first-place O’s.)
You bring up ERA, contending that Cuellar’s (for a shorter career) is superior. But ERA needs to be seen in context, compared to the league ERA’s for each year. Blyleven’s career ERA+ is 18% better than that of the average pitcher of his time. Cuellar’s is 9% better.
For Mike Cuellar’s six outstanding years (1969-1974) with Baltimore, his W-L record was 125-63. Without him, the O’s went 461-311, .597. As Ian points out, W-L “isn’t a great way to evaluate a pitcher,” but let’s notice that Cuellar played for first-place teams. Cuellar was 62 games over .500 and the Orioles were 150 games over without him.
Blyleven’s first six years (1970-1975) overlap Cuellar’s top six. Bert’s record is 95-85, which includes his 10-9 age 19 season. Even with the 164 innings of that teenage year, he nearly matches Cuellar’s innings pitched (Blyleven 1611, Cuellar 1665). Without him as the pitcher of record, the Twins went 393-386. Blyleven was 10 games over .500 and the Twins were 7 games over without him.
But wait! These weren’t Blyleven’s six best years — those were 1973, 1974, 1977, 1984, 1985, and 1989. These (1970-1975) were just his age 19-24 years, the ones closest in time to Mike Cuellar’s peak success. Between ages 19-24 (well, 20-25) Mike Cuellar had a won-loss record of 41-51 in Triple-A. No harm in that, but no reason to disparage what Blyleven was doing in the majors at the same ages, either.
One last argument. There are only nine pitchers, ever, to meet these criteria. Bert Blyleven and the company he should be keeping.
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/5672
Do I have to do this again?
People throwing out all these numbers and stats and newfangled nonsense arguing about Blyleven, and there’s still one simple unassailable fact:
ONLY FOUR GUYS HAVE EVER STRUCK OUT MORE BATTERS.
(And a bunch of guys who pitched as long or longer than Bert aren’t among those four.)
Bellweather [#8] – nice job. I could totally hear Stephen A. while I read your post. You were spot on.
[...] – he does grow a bit one-dimensional at times during the broadcast. Still, any guy that can have a “Free Bert” campaign mounted on his behalf when he’s temporarily suspended from the network is worthy of [...]