Who Voted for David Segui? Topic

I guess if you look at it from the point of view of...Is this guy better than the worst player in the HOF, lots more guys should be in. I was in my most avid baseball fan days during all of Blyleven's career, and he never was considered an elite pitcher, as Carlton was. But, he was a force to be reckoned with, and objectively, if he had ever become a free agent and gone to the Yankees, my guess is he would have then gone into the "elite" conversations, and would have been a cinch to go in. He was a better pitcher than most remember him as, his weakness was giving up the long ball. He gave up a lot of HR's. He also had the misfortune of having his best seasons either on a bad team, or when someone else was having an even better season. Plus, on better teams, 300 wins would have occurred, and that would have put him in. I think the Dodgers or Braves would have been very happy to trade Sutton even up for Blyleven. Nobody thought Sutton was better than Bly. So by that logic, Bert should be in. But as an old man, who remembers a bit too fondly "the good (better?) old days," I don't see Bly, Dawson, or Mazeroski, as HOF'ers.
1/12/2010 12:35 AM
Old Guy
1/12/2010 7:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by mattedesa on 1/09/2010In case anyone hasn't had enough of the Blyleven debate, this guy puts up some really good arguments (without calling people idiots and blockheads).
I second matt's review. Posnanski wrote one of the best pieces avaliable arguing Blyleven for the Hall. In case people skipped it, I'm going to post a portion of his argument below. In this section, Posnanski responds directly to the people, such as Trentonjoe, concerned about the lack of Cy Young/All Star appearances:

I know many people don’t like giving credit for longevity. And that’s because longevity is kind of boring. They would point out that Blyleven only led the league in strikeouts once rather than pointing out that he had 200-plus Ks eight times (only Hall of Famers have done it that many times). They would point out that Blyelven made just two All-Star teams without noticing that he was a second-half pitcher — he was 115-84 with a 2.93 ERA in August, September and October throughout his career.

People would point out that Blyleven only once led the league in ERA+ without mentioning that he finished second three times and in the Top 5 seven times. They would point out that twice, later in his career, he gave up record-setting home run numbers without pointing out that over a long career his home run rate was better than Niekro, Sutton, Marichal, Bunning, Unit, Morris, Eckersley, Robin Roberts, Fergie and Catfish among many others. People point at wins and losses without considering that Bert Blyleven played for teams that were sub-.500 when he was not pitching. And he lost 99 quality starts in his career (fifth most since 1954) and he had 79 quality start no decisions (11th most). He lost 139 games when he pitched at least seven innings — more than any pitcher since 1954. I’m just saying there might be more than seems obvious at first glance.

The reason I put up the remarkable number of shutouts Blyleven had in an earlier post was not to say that those shutouts should qualify him for the Hall of Fame but only point out … that he had a remarkable number of shutouts. The thing that I think Blyleven has going against him — aside from him falling 13 victories short of 300 — is the enduring image that he was not a great pitcher. He did not win a Cy Young. He did not make many All-Star teams. He did not excite kids when they got his baseball card. The idea that Blyleven was wildly unappreciated in his time does not rest easy in the mind. If he was that good, dammit, we would have noticed.

Well, as far as I know, a shutout is pretty much the best thing a pitcher can do for his team. He doesn’t do it alone, of course, but he’s the main component. And only eight pitchers in baseball history — only THREE pitchers since Deadball — threw more shutouts than Bert Blyleven. Of course, all three of those pitchers — Spahn (three more shutouts), Ryan and Seaver (one more, as mentioned) — were slam dunk, first ballot, no doubt Hall of Famers. In fact, as Rich Lederer has pointed out, every single one of the Top 20 shutout pitchers in baseball history are in the Hall of Fame … except Blyleven.

I’ll give you one more statistic — something to think about (I hope). There are shutouts. And then there are SHUTOUTS. I suspect that if a shutout is great, a super-shutout is even better. What’s a super-shutout? Right: 1-0. That’s the stuff of legend. Your team scrapes together one run and the pitcher makes that run stand up — they’ll write songs for that guy. Jack Morris did it in the World Series and is still remembered for it. Winning 1-0 is magical.

Well, you know what’s coming now.

Bert Blyleven won FIFTEEN 1-0 victories in his career. And I will bet you that no one — certainly no one in fifty or sixty years — had more 1-0 shutouts. I looked at the obvious choices and I have not found anyone yet.

At a glance (since 1954):

Steve Carlton won 12.
Gaylord Perry won 12.
Greg Maddux won 11.
Nolan Ryan won 11.
Fergie Jenkins won 11.
Sandy Koufax won 10.
Bob Gibson won 9.
Jim Palmer won 9.
Don Drysdale won 9.
Tom Seaver won 8.
Juan Marichal won 7.
Phil Niekro won 6.
Whitey Ford won 6
Catfish Hunter won 5.
Jack Morris won 5.
Jim Bunning won 4.
Randy Johnson won 4
Roger Clemens won 3.
Pedro Martinez won 3.

Look, the idea is not to convince you that Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. Of course I believe that. The idea is to convince anyone who cares that there might be more to the career. And that Blyleven was damned good.

Look: There are 38 starters in the Hall of Fame since Deadball. Blyleven’s 118 ERA+ puts him in the middle third, his 287 wins would rank ninth overall, his 3,701 strikeouts would rank third, his 60 shutouts would rank fourth, his won-loss percentage would be low but still ahead of four others. By the readily available Hall of Fame standards, it seems to me pretty obvious he’s a Hall of Famer.
1/12/2010 9:59 PM
Here's one more intriguing take on the Blyleven Cy Young question. Rich Lederer breaks down the Cy voting from Blyleven's best years, allowing the reader to judge for himself whether he was unfairly looked over.

Bert Blyleven For Hall of Fame: Answering the Naysayers

I really liked this quote from Dave Winfield, found in the above article, describing Blyleven's trademark pitch as a "bowel-locking, jelly-leg-inducing curveball."
1/12/2010 10:06 PM
I really liked the 1st article. I can't get the 2nd one to come up. It's probably my crappy computer not your link.

I think the ERA+ is a valid point as is his shutout total. I think the 1-0 shutout is contrived.

The article does make me wonder how bad Blyleven's team really were. Is there a way to check that? Gaylord and Carlton were on some bad teams , were Blyleven's teams significantly worse then theirs?
1/13/2010 5:20 AM
Trentonjoe, it isn't a question of who's teams were worse, rather that Blyleven played on mediocre teams for a very large portion of his career. This became particularly problematic for Bert as the free agent era began, when the better players from his team went elsewhere, and his team didn't replace them. I'm not sure why Blyleven stayed, had he become a FA, IMO, he would now be a shoo-in for the hall. In a back handed kind of way, it is better for a player if he doesn't get in, because then we talk about him. Once he gets in, he's forgotten about, and we talk about the next near miss who may deserve the honor, as in Pee Wee reese and Phil Rizzuto. I honestly don't see Blyleven as a HOF'er, but there are probably 75 guys I would say that about. By the standards the hall has already set, the bar is low enough that he climbs comfortably over it.
1/13/2010 8:37 AM
Quote: Originally posted by truemen on 1/06/2010Mark McGwire was on only 23% of the ballots? Now thats just plain wrong. Dude was the most feared hitter of our generation.


Still FEEL this way? Dude was a crying fraud. Ooops. He does appear to have gotten some plastic surgery to address his chronic skin......Botox?
1/16/2010 12:50 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By The_Creeper on 1/16/2010
Quote: Originally posted by truemen on 1/06/2010 Mark McGwire was on only 23% of the ballots? Now thats just plain wrong. Dude was the most feared hitter of our generation.


Still FEEL this way? Dude was a crying fraud. Ooops. He does appear to have gotten some plastic surgery to address his chronic skin......Botox
I personally would put Big Mac in. The numbers are what they are - even without enhancement he would have been a great HR hitter. If everybody was using steroids, the best hitters were still the best hitters and still aught to get in. And in what way is it bad to have chronic skin? Do you only have skin on a part time basis or what?
1/16/2010 9:50 AM
I heard a guy on the radio put it this way: We will never really know the extent of who all used drugs. Does the fact the McGwire got caught (and subsequently admitted it) make his offense worse than the next player who got away with it? For players in this era, we should vote for them (or not vote) regardless of the steroid question. If MLB or the hall doesn't want convicted steroid users selected, they can make a rule to that effect - the way they did to keep Pete Rose out.

Let's see how badly that stirs the pot.
1/16/2010 10:15 AM
nah way. a cheater is a cheater. what I would do is look at the stats of the years that they were most likely clean and vote based on that.
1/16/2010 11:54 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By thats_nice on 1/16/2010(1) nah way. a cheater is a cheater. (2) what I would do is look at the stats of the years that they were most likely clean and vote based on that.
(1) Would you take away HOF status from the pitchers who doctored the baseball?

(2) How exactly do you determine who was clean and when? Even though I seriously doubt Griffey or Maddux took steroids, can you be positive they didn't?
1/16/2010 11:59 AM
1. yes. I'd also take away HOF of about 60 players because they were really good and not one of the greatest to play the game
2. there's been no link to griffey or maddux therefore I'd vote them both in.
1/17/2010 2:11 PM
But the question really remains: what does Steroids really do for you to enhance your game?

Does it make you hit the ball better? Meaning, if I, an over weight 48 year old man, took steroids tonight, could i all of a sudden start hitting homeruns in Dodger Stadium?

No of course not.

I am not an expert, but I think all that steroids do is (1) allow you to stay in the weight room longer (2) help you recover from injuries faster.
1/17/2010 8:21 PM
Does it not increase your bat speed? Help you turn on fastballs? Turn lazy fly's into lazy home runs cause they went 30' further?
If they didn't improve performance how come all the users were breaking records and playing so well for 1 year but not other.
Here's examples
Brady Anderson
Gary Mathews
Sosa's 3 years 60+ hr
Bonds HR totals
luis gonzalez in 2001

It also shrinks your nuts!
1/18/2010 6:35 AM
When you say "increase your bat speed" do you think that means that because you were able to stay in the weight room longer, that you are stronger and stronger means increased bat speed?

Maybe I'm the stupid one here, but I still don't get it. How does taking a shot in the rear help your body function at a higher level?
1/18/2010 9:25 AM
◂ Prev 123456
Who Voted for David Segui? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.