― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:48 (nineteen years ago) link
He played for fifteen years, and he had about four great years, four good years, and the rest were downright BAD. If he'd pitched for anyone other than the 70's A's and Yankees dynasties, there's no way he'd be anywhere near a serious HoF discussion.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 20:51 (nineteen years ago) link
See this is where I get the impression that cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats lies a little. For 5 years (71-75), Hunter was probably hands down the most feared pitcher in baseball. No he might not have been Koufax, but he was still by all accounts pretty amazing. Those five years count for more to me than 20 some odd years of just pretty good workmanlike pitching (I will admit that these breakdowns of Blyleven's stats are making a pretty case that he was better than that.) (I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams? I mean that can't all be bad luck, right?)
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:23 (nineteen years ago) link
Postseason Pitching
Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+ 1970 ALCS MIN BAL L 1 0 0.00 0-0 0 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 2 1979 NLCS PIT CIN W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 8 1 0 9 WS PIT BAL W 2 1 1.80 1-0 0 0 0 10.0 8 2 3 4 1987 ALCS MIN DET W 2 2 4.05 2-0 0 0 0 13.3 12 6 3 9 WS MIN STL W 2 2 2.77 1-1 0 0 0 13.0 13 4 2 12+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+ 3 Lg Champ Series 2-1 4 3 2.59 3-0 0 1 0 24.3 22 7 3 20 2 World Series 2-0 4 3 2.35 2-1 0 0 0 23.0 21 6 5 16 5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 0 47.3 43 13 8 36+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
He didn't get many chances, but Blyleven pitched well in the playoffs and was a part of two World Series Champions.
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:48 (nineteen years ago) link
Many of his best years came before free agency, so he didn't have much choice in the matter.
Even with free agency, it's only during the last ten years or so that all the best players end up on big-market winning teams at some point, since eventually those are the only teams that can afford them. If Jaret Wright can bounce around for a while, have one good season after a slew of crappy ones, and end up with a multi-year deal from a perennial contender, then Blyleven would have ended up playing for more winning teams too, if he was playing today.
Even so, every era has a few great players who toil away in relative obscurity. Look at Bobby Abreu, or even Carlos Delgado. If Delgado goes to the Mets, maybe in 20 years people will be saying "if he was so good, why did his teams always finish in third place?"
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 22:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 23:22 (nineteen years ago) link
Alex, nobody's saying Hunter wasn't GOOD, just that Blyleven was better for MUCH longer, and that "good press" shouldn't be a measure of excellence. And I don't see Hunter '71-75 being "amazing" ... His most "impressive statistics" are wins (ie, having good teammates) and innings pitched (which blew out his arm, as MIR says). I think he got extra credit for the pennants and the sexy nicknames. And it's cute how you use high Cy Young finishes as relevant to Hunter, not relevant for Blyleven. (Also, I don't see Hunter's status as the first Big Splash free agent being relevant; see Marvin Miller's book for how clownishly Catfish handled that situation.)
The "cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats" is the most reliable evidence there is. Not "what you heard" (from Joe Morgan?). And it isn't so much that Blyleven toiled for bad teams (they were more often mediocre), but pitched in hitters' parks.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 26 December 2004 03:58 (nineteen years ago) link
I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 26 December 2004 08:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― otto midnight (otto midnight), Monday, 27 December 2004 07:32 (nineteen years ago) link
It's not lookin' good for Marv, MIR -- when the Vets voted last in '03, no one came close to getting 75% ... and of the 60 votes required for election, Miller got 35. He got three FEWER votes than Walter O'Malley -- or as we call him in Brooklyn, Satan.
Miller and other non-players are on the "composite" ballot. Here's this year's players' ballot:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005/2005_vc_candidates.htm
The only one I'm sold on is Santo, but Dick Allen and Tony Oliva have decent cases -- as does Curt Flood for courage and legal pioneering.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 14:28 (nineteen years ago) link
Mickey Lolich won't get in the Hall, but his pitching in the 68 World Series may be the best performance ever in the fall classic by a starter. The guy out pitched Bob Gibson in Game Seven on TWO days rest. ESPN Classic was showed that game a few months back and it was great. Harry Caray was doing the play by play.
While I don't know if he is good enough player to make the hall, Al Oliver had a pretty good career and never gets put on these kind of lists.
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:12 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:55 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:05 (nineteen years ago) link
― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:15 (nineteen years ago) link
My general point is that "b...b...but he was a bit of an asshole" is a criticism that's used far too often despite being irrelevant most of the time. As long as the guy didn't compromise the game of baseball (Pete Rose being the most obvious example) then I couldn't care less if he was moody and didn't get along with everybody. If he could bring it on the field, then that's the most important thing.
(xpost)
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:21 (nineteen years ago) link
Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:33 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 20:32 (nineteen years ago) link
Example #2: replace "Reggie Jackson" with "Barry Bonds" in the above paragraph.
Or consider the Yankees and Red Sox of the last few years. When the Yankees were winning, they were "professional" and "disciplined". Their lack of comaraderie was viewed as an asset, i.e. "they're all business when they take the field". OTOH, the Sox were drama queens who didn't know how to win when it counts.
Fast forward to this past year. The Yanks are up 3-0 and they're winning because they're the professionals who respect the game and know how to win. Five days later, the exact same guys are described as "cold" and "unemotional" and that's why they lost. In the meantime, Manny and Pedro's weird quirks and selfishness are ignored, and suddenly all the drama becomes an asset because the Sox are "loose", "having fun", and "relaxed", and that's why they won.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 23:47 (nineteen years ago) link
"So we're supposed to believe that Reggie was a poison when his team lost, and a leader when they won?"
I don't think anyone really said Reggie (or Barry or Albert Belle) was a leader at any point though (well maybe Reggie when he got older.) They just said when they won that they were very good players (which obv all three were) and at times very clutch players. That doesn't mean that they also didn't cause some problems in their respective clubhouses/franchises (which all three obv did.)
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 00:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 01:22 (nineteen years ago) link
Great players are great players irrespective of their teams. You can be a great player on a good team or on a bad team. Similarly, if someone is a clubhouse cancer, then that should also be independent of the quality of the team. But it isn't. The same guy who is a cancer when the team loses is a leader when the team wins.
This doesn't mean that team chemistry doesn't count for anything. But it counts for a lot less than player performance.
Haha watch out conventional wisdom! Barry's coming after ya!
Next thing you know, I'll be claiming that there's no such thing as a clutch hitter!!
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 01:56 (nineteen years ago) link
Reggie's championship teams in both Oakland and the Bronx were filled with hot heads, both on the team, the managers and owners. It was a crazy atmosphere, yet they won, mostly because they were freakin' loaded with talent top to bottom. One thing I find interesting about both of those clubs is that they both won titles with two managers, the A's with Dick Williams and Alvin Dark, the Yanks with Billy Martin and Bob Lemon. Both clubs had complete freak owners with big checkbooks with King George and Charlie Finley.
70s baseball was cool. You had both of these clubs and the Big Red Machine. KC, Baltimore, Philly, LA and Pittsburgh all also won their division more than once in 70s.
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 06:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 09:56 (nineteen years ago) link
Yeah, for purpose of analyzing a player's career worth, it all should come down to stats, or as I prefer to call them, FACTS. We can all spin our own fantasies of who's a "clubhouse cancer" -- one of my first choices would be late-career Saint Cal Ripken -- and it doesn't prove a damn thing.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 15:16 (nineteen years ago) link
I agree Mr. Cal could be pretty detrimental to his team by that point too, but Mr. Morb WHY if everything is so easy to calculate based on the "facts" (haha) do we even bother having votes then? Why isn't there just a formula?
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 16:12 (nineteen years ago) link
2. I'm not advocating a fucking formula, but INTERPRETING the record of the player's career.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link
Took me a second to figure this out--I thought he was still playing for somebody--but I-Rod's "officially" retiring:
http://cnnsi.com/2012/baseball/mlb/04/19/rodriguez.retires.ap/index.html#?sct=mlb_t11_a2
I guess he goes into the Bagwell group: automatic first-ballot if they vote on stats alone, some undetermined amount of time in limbo otherwise.
― clemenza, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:04 (eleven years ago) link
thought the same thing when i saw he's retiring. who else are you putting in this group?
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 20 April 2012 16:08 (eleven years ago) link
Bret Boone...just kidding. Those are the first two that come to mind--let me think about it.
― clemenza, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:09 (eleven years ago) link
Thome, too. Got any others? The cloud-of-vague-suspicion group...
― clemenza, Friday, 20 April 2012 16:17 (eleven years ago) link
Piazza?
― Grimy Little Pimp (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 20 April 2012 17:33 (eleven years ago) link
was Pudge on any sort of nefarious "list"? a coworker of mine seems to think so.
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 20 April 2012 17:34 (eleven years ago) link
p sure he was named in the mitchell report but didn't have to testify?
― Grimy Little Pimp (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 20 April 2012 17:47 (eleven years ago) link
came to camp 30 pounds lighter when they started testing
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:18 (eleven years ago) link
tbh, I just assume anyone on the mid-90s Rangers was using (note: don't care)
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:19 (eleven years ago) link
Canseco said he used too (note: also don't care)
― Godzilla vs. Rodan Rodannadanna (The Yellow Kid), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:22 (eleven years ago) link
I remember people pointing fingers on the basis of some drastic offseason weight loss a few years ago ...
I was looking at his B-R player page and was wondering
1) he had a negative dWAR for three straight years from 2002-4. I don't get it ... he was great defensively, then bad for three years, then great again?
2) he had a 67 career WAR, which barely puts him in the top 100 all-time. I don't know, doesn't that seem a bit low for one of the best catchers ever (and probably the best ever defensively). It would suggest that either a) catchers aren't all that valuable (because they usually aren't among the league's best hitters) or b) a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Friday, 20 April 2012 18:22 (eleven years ago) link
catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hittingcomparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:26 (eleven years ago) link
BB-Ref ranks his 67 WAR at...67th place, coincidentally. That definitely doesn't seem too low to me.
― Godzilla vs. Rodan Rodannadanna (The Yellow Kid), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:26 (eleven years ago) link
and #2 among catchers, #11 among catcher WAR/game
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:27 (eleven years ago) link
10th if you eliminate Jack Clements since he was pre-modern
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:28 (eleven years ago) link
You take the first one, Omar.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:17 (two months ago) link
Beltre, Mauer...
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:17 (two months ago) link
aaaaand Helton!
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:18 (two months ago) link
Still majorly surprised that Mauer is a first-ballot guy. Not complaining, just surprised.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:18 (two months ago) link
Beltre, Helton, Mauer, and that's it
― omar little, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:19 (two months ago) link
You were like 30 seconds ahead of me, Thermo. Is St. Marys that deep in the woods?
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:19 (two months ago) link
gonna be curious to see those percentages. not surprised Wagner didn't make it.
does this mean Posey is going to be a first ballot guy now?!
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:23 (two months ago) link
Sheffield is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXP1MSFwMnc
Not sure how he'll fair with the VC, which is much the harder of the two to predict.
(Never doubted that Posey would be first-ballot, I guess because his career ended well rather than petering out--plus, obviously, the WS titles.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:24 (two months ago) link
Under 30% for Utley...that'll change quickly, I think.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:25 (two months ago) link
the best chance for several of these guys is the upcoming desert of star candidates, post-suzuki. Posey, Molina, and uh Hamels are the "best" between the Suzuki ballot and the Pujols ballot.
― omar little, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:29 (two months ago) link
not counting Cano and Braun, who seem like sub-10% guys potentially.
― omar little, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:31 (two months ago) link
I'm glad Scott Boras isn't sitting on that couch.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:33 (two months ago) link
i'd be shocked if Cano was under 10
― FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:35 (two months ago) link
Hard to say--the writers are especially punitive to players who tested positive well along the timeline.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:37 (two months ago) link
plus it was two PED suspensions, and his stats are really impressive but not A-Rod/Manny territory.
― omar little, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:39 (two months ago) link
i think he's also sort of a curiously forgotten guy, maybe because of the manner in which his career petered out statistically. i've gotta believe he'll do better than Braun for reasons both related to their stats and obv Braun's much worse behavior w/r/t his PED use.
― omar little, Tuesday, 23 January 2024 23:41 (two months ago) link
Mauer's only the third first-ballot catcher after Bench and I-Rod.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 24 January 2024 05:16 (two months ago) link
poor billy
obviously there are arguments to be made about the true value of relievers, but he was lights-out when it was asked of him
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 24 January 2024 05:50 (two months ago) link
Anyone else listen to Grimes’ “We Appreciate Power” and always hear “power” as “Mauer” and then start re-framing the lyrics to be about him? No one? Ok.
― Michael F Gill, Wednesday, 24 January 2024 17:25 (two months ago) link
Next five ballots: https://www.mlb.com/news/future-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballots-preview
― clemenza, Wednesday, 24 January 2024 17:40 (two months ago) link
Ichiro, Posey, Pujols, and Cabrera are first ballot inductees i bet. Molina, hard to tell. Sabathia? I'm maybe slightly agnostic on him; as far as lefty starters go he's probably closer to David Wells than he is Clayton Kershaw, but might have to dig in deeper considering the era he pitched in.
guys like Lester and Wainwright had nice careers, not dissimilar at all, but they should be in their team HOFs, not the MLB one.
really kinda curious to see where Granderson, Hernández, Kinsler, and Pedroia wind up in the voting next year. they were all great players to varying levels, though i don't think they would or necessarily should get voted in.
― omar little, Wednesday, 24 January 2024 17:59 (two months ago) link
Jimmy Key (among my favourite Jays ever) and Russell Martin into the Canadian Baseball HOF.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/article/martin-key-among-six-inductees-to-enter-canadian-baseball-hall-of-fame/
― clemenza, Tuesday, 6 February 2024 15:23 (two months ago) link
Paul Godfrey, I should mention, was instrumental in getting Toronto a franchise. He engineered the deal that almost landed us the Giants in '76, before George Moscone rescued them and kept them in San Francisco.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 6 February 2024 15:43 (two months ago) link
Comparison graphics frequently turn up on my FB wall. Some of them are far-fetched special pleading--someone trying to make a case that Dale Murphy was better than Reggie Jackson, stuff like that. One caught my eye today: John Smoltz vs. Kevin Brown. The graphic provided overall stats, i.e. including Smoltz's years as a closer, and their career lines were very similar. Just as starters:
Smoltz: 209-149, 3.40, 7.90 K/9, 2.92 K/BB, 1.192 WHIP, 3211.2 IPBrown: 210-143, 3.26, 6.60 K/9, 2.67 K/BB, 1.219 WHIP, 3237.2 IP
Again, very close. I thought Brown might actually come out looking better, but I think there's a small but clear edge there to Smoltz. When you add 1) Smoltz's three seasons as a first-rate closer (a role that, if I remember correctly, he volunteered to step into), 2) Smoltz's stellar post-season record (overall, Brown was mediocre in the post-season in a much smaller sample), and 3) Brown's PED associations, it's more clear-cut why Smoltz in the HOF and Brown isn't than I thought it would be.
― clemenza, Thursday, 28 March 2024 02:24 (three weeks ago) link