Different era of baseball, but Blyleven's CG's and SHO's are impressive.

One player can only do so much, look at those teams he played on? Not many good teams there. His W/L record means very little.

Also if you look he was very effective throughout various ages during his career ranging from his most effective season per ERA+ at age 22 to his 6th most impressive season at age 38.

I think the HOF is lame either way(if I created a HOF Blyleven would not be in there), but Blyleven should be in there under today's standards.

Quote: Originally posted by Trentonjoe on 1/07/2010Legally, 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.

What does Cy Young voting have to do with having a good career? By that logic Javier Vazquez was the fourth best pitcher in the NL in '09. Cy Young is just the skewed opinions of some dumb regional sportswriters.

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

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

Agree with Trentonjoe

Personally, i think Bert Blyleven should be in the Hall of fame. Of course as a Twins supporter, my opinion is biased. I just think people put way to much emphasis on wins. When you take into account some of the teams he played on, he easily could have had over 300 wins. Personally, i look at his strikeouts, shutouts and complete games as defining stats.

Personally, i think All Star appearances and Cy Young Voting can be easily skewed. Statistically the best players aren't always voted in or acknowledged, at least in my opinion. However, with all that said, i can't begin to understand voting for Karros or Segui, just to bring it back to the initial topic. Somebody said it, some of these guys need their Voting PRIVILEGES revoked.

Quote: Originally posted by Trentonjoe on 1/08/2010

Quote: Originally posted by bbondsmvp on 1/08/2010[/QUOTE]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]Was Crash the best movie of 2005 just because it won the Academy Award? Yes, awards are meaningless to weigh a player's career. The awards are just a product of what ever small percentage of games each sportswriter has actually paid attention to during the season.

I suppose you also think the BCS Champ is definitive.

No, but I think you're an idiot.

Award voting is a reasonably accurate way to tell how a player is viewed when he played.

I am not saying that Blyleven wasn't a good pitcher, I am saying at the time he wasn't really thought of as one of the best pitcher of his time. Tom Glavine was.

If you're response is, "yeah but he should have been" I can't really argue with you. I really don't have the time to go back and compare Blyleven to the really good pitchers of the 70's and 80's.

I suspect he comes up significantly below Seaver, Palmer and Carlton (despite's boogerlips exhaustive research to the contrary) but similar to the Suttons and Perry types.

My biggest beef is that Blyleven was a compiler. He played for forever and was good every year like Don Sutton or Eddie Murray. However, he doesn't have the big number (300 wins, 3,000 hits, etc.). I don't think the imaginary boundary is super important but it does mean something.

I think if you aren't gonna be the best (or near the best) at your position (which is measureable by MVP, Cy Young and All-Star voting or appearances) that you better have stats that are overwhelming (like Don Sutton's win total).

Obviously, in this thread, I am the minority.

Direct from the Hall of fame website:

Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

How anyone that could quote wins and Cy Young voting as measuring sticks of a Hall of Fame career could call someone else an idiot is beyond me.

Let's look at history via your "logic." In 2009 Tim Lincecum was a below average pitcher because he only won 15 games. And Juan Marichal should not be in the Hall Of Fame because he only won 243 games and only placed in the Cy Young voting once, finishing eighth. Yep, you got it all figured out.

Marichal was a 9 time all-star.

Marichal got MVP votes 8 times.

Cy Young voting before 1966 was limited to only 20 votes (there was no 1st, 2nd, 3rd like today) for both leagues. There wasn't an AL and NL Cy Young, there was just one for MLB.

I think Marichal was recognized by his peers as being a good pitcher.

And last I checked, wins are a part of a player's record and playing ability can be judged by awards won.

I have to say as someone who only knows Blyleven through this site and progressive leagues, I've never really thought of Blyleven as much more than an average to slightly above-average pitcher. His only real value being his longevity. In fact, I have twice skipped over him in drafts to get another pitcher with a much shorter career.

And that's without considering his W-L record or his award voting as that's irrelevant here. Certainly he gains value because of his longevity, but his season-season numbers aren't all that impressive, and even when you look at blocks of 5-10 seasons, there are several peers in each era (or block) of his career that stand out as much better.

I think a comparison could be made to Brad Radke. I'd put them on about the same level with only Blyleven's longevity giving him the edge.

For HOF purposes, if you have to consider longevity, then I think you have to look at the landmark stats 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 HRs, etc... or as having stood out as one of, if not THE, best for a 8-10 year period.. and Blyleven just doesn't have either, even with his longevity. I wouldn't even consider him for the HOF.

Quote: Originally posted by Trentonjoe on 1/06/2010My big beef with Blyleven is if he was so good how come he only made the all star team twice and was only in the top 10 for Cy Young Voting 4 times. How come his contemporaries didn't think he was that good?

Because the voters then were even bigger blockheads than the current voters, except maybe those picking Gold Gloves. Lots of good players were penalized by lazy voters looking at wins and batting average and no farther, then in HOF voting are penalized again because another set of idiots, er voters, just look at the misguided Cy Young/MVP votes because it's easy.

In case anyone hasn't had enough of the Blyleven debate, this guy puts up some really good arguments (without calling people idiots and blockheads).

A. The movie Crash was one of the worst movies I ever saw.

B. Bert Blyleven needs to get into the Hall. He was a good pitcher for a long time, something you can't say about a lot of pitchers anymore and I really don't want to listen to him whine about this forever while watching my Twins play.

Quote: Originally posted by blackmink18 on 1/09/2010A. The movie Crash was one of the worst movies I ever saw.B. Bert Blyleven needs to get into the Hall. He was a good pitcher for a long time, something you can't say about a lot of pitchers anymore and I really don't want to listen to him whine about this forever while watching my Twins play.

He was a good pitcher for a long time! Exactly!!! How is the HOF status. So now all good players who play a long time get in??? Segui was a good player. I guess he does deserve the hall!

Quote: Originally Posted By bklynborn on 1/06/2010
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.



Here's Blyleven's votes - f*cking idiots should have their ballots revoked!

You do realize all those guys could have had Blyleven on their ballots too, right? Each writer gets to vote for up to 10 players...so you can't say those guys took "Blyleven's" votes

Did we ever find out who voted for Segui?