Blyleven wasn't as good as Glavine? I used to think you weren't a total moron.

Somebody Told Me (Now I Believe Them)
-by Strong Bad

Somebody told me
That you were so stupid
But I didn't believe them
But now I believe them

Somebody told me
That you were so stupid
But I didn't believe them
But now I believe them

Everybody's stupid!
Everybody's stupid!
And everybody's stupid but MEEEEEEE!

Oh, somebody told me
That you were so stupid
But I didn't believe them
But now I believe them

Somebody told me
That you were so stupid
But I didn't believe them
And now I believe them

You're not cool

Legally, I am an imbecile. With hard work, I hope to, one day, work up to moron status.

That doesn't change the fact the Glavine was better than Blyleven.

More wins, better in Cy young voting, better career ERA+, I am interested in what support you have that Blyleven was better than Tom.

Tom Glavine:

Won 2 Cy Youngs
Finished 2nd or 3rd 4 other times
10 time All Star
305 Wins
.600 career Winning %
118 career ERA+

Bert Blyleven:

No Cy Youngs
Finished 3rd twice in CY votings, only recieved votes 2 other times (4th and 7th place)
2 time All-Star
118 career ERA+


Interestingly enough they essiantially started the same amount of games (685 to 682) and have the same ERA+ for their career. The only thing Blyleven did better was strike people out. Glavine was certainly more appreciated and respected by his peers ( I put a lot of weight into that obviously).

To me, Glavine was the best pitcher in baseball (for a time) with Clemens, Maddux, Smoltz, and Randy Johnson in their primes. You just can't say that about Blyleven.

a) "If 1 million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." This applies here. His "peers" were clearly wrong.

b) The argument for using "Cy Young voting" is not to see what his peers said about him, but to distinguish high-quality seasons. Clearly, if the voting itself is wrong, then this doesn't hold up. Just look at the ERA+ of Blyleven versus Glavine. Very similar.

c) The wins argument is clearly flawed. Do you pick your WIS teams based on wins? Run support and defense clearly play a huge role in this. Glavine clearly pitched on better teams (granted, part of this was their pitching staff, but the defense/hitting on his teams were better as well).

d) "They essentially started the same amount of games and have the same ERA+ for their career. The only thing Blyleven did better was strike people out." So at worst, they are about even. One argument for Blyleven is that by striking more people out, he actually contributed more to his success whereas Glavine relied on his defense behind him.

Pretty tough to compare 2 pitchers from different eras but if you are going to compare stats put them all on the table. The only one you list that Glavine has that is better than Blyleven is Wins and you have to list that twice using Career Winning Pct to make Glavine look better. I'd be willing to bet the reason Glavine won more games than Blyleven is because he played on teams with a better offense. All-Star appearances and Cy Young voting is skewed because of the Wins catagory you are putting so much weight on.

How many of these catagories does Glavine have over Blyleven?
Games Started: 682 - 685
Wins: 305 - 287
Losses: 203 - 250
Career ERA: 3.54 - 3.31
Complete Games: 56 - 242
ShutOuts: 25 - 60
Strikeouts: 2607- 3701
WHIP: 1.314 - 1.198
Innings Pitched: 4413 - 4970
WS Rings: 1 - 2

Glavine doesn't come close in Complete Games, Shutouts, or K's!
I also wouldn't say he was better than Maddux, Clemens or the Big Unit.
He wouldn't have won a WS had it not been for Maddux in '95.

Quote: Originally Posted By bheid408 on 1/07/2010
Pretty tough to compare 2 pitchers from different eras but if you are going to compare stats put them all on the table. The only one you list that Glavine has that is better than Blyleven is Wins and you have to list that twice using Career Winning Pct to make Glavine look better. I'd be willing to bet the reason Glavine won more games than Blyleven is because he played on teams with a better offense. All-Star appearances and Cy Young voting is skewed because of the Wins catagory you are putting so much weight on.

How many of these catagories does Glavine have over Blyleven?
Games Started: 682 - 685
Wins: 305 - 287
Losses: 203 - 250
Career ERA: 3.54 - 3.31
Complete Games: 56 - 242
ShutOuts: 25 - 60
Strikeouts: 2607- 3701
WHIP: 1.314 - 1.198
Innings Pitched: 4413 - 4970
WS Rings: 1 - 2

Glavine doesn't come close in Complete Games, Shutouts, or K's!
I also wouldn't say he was better than Maddux, Clemens or the Big Unit.
He wouldn't have won a WS had it not been for Maddux in '95.

I'm sorry - who's name is on the WS MVP trophy that year?

Quote: Originally Posted By bheid408 on 1/07/2010
Glavine doesn't come close in Complete Games, Shutouts, or K's!
I also wouldn't say he was better than Maddux, Clemens or the Big Unit.
He wouldn't have won a WS had it not been for Maddux in '95.

Glavine doesn't have the CG or shutouts but in raw #'s but when he retired he was 2nd in shutouts and complete games for active pitchers

And he was better than Maddux, Clemens and Johnson for period of time. In 1991 and 1998 he was the best pitcher in the NL. His ERA+ those seasons were 153 and 168...

Had it not been for Maddux the Braves wouldn't have even gotten to the WS in '95.

Quote: Originally Posted By footballmm11 on 1/07/2010a) "If 1 million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." This applies here. His "peers" were clearly wrong.

b) The argument for using "Cy Young voting" is not to see what his peers said about him, but to distinguish high-quality seasons. Clearly, if the voting itself is wrong, then this doesn't hold up. Just look at the ERA+ of Blyleven versus Glavine. Very similar.

Peers is the wrong word, I meant contemporaries.

Are you suggesting that post season awards and all-star appearances are meaningless or just meaningless in this example?

Quote: Originally Posted By thats_nice on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally posted by crickett13 on 1/06/2010
With those requirements about 6 players would be in. Wouldn't that make for a fun tour.

????? Only 6??? How about you know your stats first before making a uneducated guess.
It's closer to 23. The best of the best.
Plus I think a lot of the guys who have 85%+ would probably get the extra few votes if voters knew they only had 3 years to get a guy in. That's about another 20 guys.

I'd rather go visit and take a tour with 45 or so of the Best of all time and actually read about them and learn about their careers than go see a watered down Hall with 290 people in it

How about you try and recognize sarcasm. And you're still wrong

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Say what you will about the Baseball HOF... it's still waaaay more exclusive than the WIS HOF.

I resemble that remark.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By Trentonjoe on 1/06/2010
or Eric Karros? Some of these guys should have their voting rights revoked.



The vote:
Andre Dawson 420 (77.9%), Bert Blyleven 400 (74.2%), Roberto Alomar 397 (73.7%), Jack Morris 282 (52.3%), Barry Larkin 278 (51.6%), Lee Smith 255 (47.3%), Edgar Martinez 195 (36.2%), Tim Raines 164 (30.4%), Mark McGwire 128 (23.7%), Alan Trammell 121 (22.4%), Fred McGriff 116 (21.5%), Don Mattingly 87 (16.1%), Dave Parker 82 (15.2%), Dale Murphy 63 (11.7%), Harold Baines 33 (6.1%), Andres Galarraga 22 (4.1%), Robin Ventura 7 (1.3%), Ellis Burks 2 (0.4%), Eric Karros 2 (0.4%), Kevin Appier 1 (0.2%), Pat Hentgen 1 (0.2%), David Segui 1 (0.2%), Mike Jackson 0, Ray Lankford 0, Shane Reynolds 0, Todd Zeile 0.

I am sure the David Segui vote had to be from a WIS user who had Segui win him some championships when the 2000 version Segui was a cookie.