If you can only come up with five guys who were above average for 20 years you're not looking hard enough.
If you can only come up with five guys who were above average for 20 years you're not looking hard enough.
Registered OOTP User
im speaking specifically of SP and you forgot a key wordOriginally Posted by nuzzy62
New User
Nice. So, I suppose you also support Jack Morris for the Hall (4-2 2.96 ERA, 3 CG, 1 shutout in WS competition, including clutch Game 7 in 1991)?
First, let's toss out the pre-WWII guys - Rixey, Marquard, Lyons and Galvin. Different eras. In fact, I have no clue why Rixey and Lyons are in at all other than longevity.to the guy who pointed out Bert's pedestrian .534 win%...
15% of the SP in the HoF have similar win%
Robin Roberts - .539
Eppa Rixey - .515
Gaylord Perry - .542
Phil Niekro - .537
Rube Marquard - .532
Ted Lyons - .531
Pud Galvin - .540
Nolan Ryan - .526
Of the remaining ones:
Nolan Ryan isn't in because of his winning pct. It's for his 300 wins, 5,000 Ks and 7 no-nos. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. More than one GM in Ryan's career chided him for being a glorified .500 pitcher.
Gaylord Perry tops 300 wins with two Cy Young Awards and three times led his league in wins. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. Personally, I would have never voted for him because he cheated much of his career.
Phil Niekro tops 300 wins and if he hadn't he probably wouldn't go in. Other than longevity, he has little else to commend him.
Robin Roberts did not win 300. He did, however, lead his league in wins four times. There was no Cy Young Award during the peak of his career but he almost surely would have won in 1952 when he won similar "pitcher or the year" honors and finished second in MVP voting. He was in the top 7 of MVP (not Cy) voting four straight years and could easily be argued the dominant pitcher of the early 1950s.
Probably the best argument for Blyleven is that the only eligible pitchers with more wins who haven't joined the Hall are Bobby Mathews (pre-1900) and Tommy John. But if you want to argue that way, you should champion the causes of Tommy John and Jim Kaat as well. All three had basically the same career.
o
Blyleven was 13 wins away from 300 and 37 away from Ryan, but started 88 LESS games than Ryan. Ryan was a much better strike out pitcher, but the dude walked boatloads of people, which Blyleven did not. No-No's, while definitely a great feat, aren't that impressive when you walk 5-10 batters a game. =\
I do believe that both Tommy John and Jim Kaat should be in the Hall, as well as Blyleven.Probably the best argument for Blyleven is that the only eligible pitchers with more wins who haven't joined the Hall are Bobby Mathews (pre-1900) and Tommy John. But if you want to argue that way, you should champion the causes of Tommy John and Jim Kaat as well. All three had basically the same career.
You're making a huge mistake though. You're judging pitchers ENTIRELY on the worst stat there is to judge them by - wins, oh, and their awards which we all know aren't the best judges of a player (see: Justin Morneau, AL MVP). Blyleven was arguably a much better all around pitcher than Ryan, despite winning less games.
If you look at stats that can actually judge a pitcher's ability - K/9, BB/9, K/BB, HR/9, WHIP, **** even ERA to a better extent than Wins, Blyleven is a very good pitcher.
New User
But wins, ERA and awards ARE how pitchers are judged for the Hall of Fame. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is. Same as every non-pitcher (except Ozzie Smith) are judged on hits, homers, batting averages and awards.
o
And we're saying that those stats shouldn't be the sole stats that a player is judged by.
For a lead role in a cage
the 'per 9' stats are not that great either. 'per PA' is a much better way. For example, K/9 only tells you how many of a player's outs were Ks, whereas K/PA tells you what % of the batters he faced were Ks.
o
K/anything is better than wins.
Registered OOTP User
i dont mention them as his sole claim to the HoF. im mearly adding more things to his resume. if you had been around here for any significant length of time, you'd know thats not my MO
ahh, i see. win% only means something for Bert. got it. thanks
I know these are skewed by the various eras of baseball...
But Blyleven is not in the top 100 pitchers in WHIP, Hits per 9, Walks per 9...
He is 99th all time in K9, but it's probably a safe bet in this era of free swingers he'll be out of the top 100 within the next decade.
We can argue all we want aboout his secondary numbers, but his best case scenario for making the Hall is based on his career totals. Fifth all-time in strikeouts is pretty special...He's 26th all time in wins with the only guys above him who aren't in (and haven't yet had a chance to be voted in) are Tommy John and Bobby Matthews.
New User
But why? Yes, I know wins is not a reliable stat (although I'd argue it means more for starting pitchers than for relievers) but Ks are vastly overrated.K/anything is better than wins.
I'll take a guy who can get 27 straight ground outs any day.
Ks have a lot of value in scouting but that's because they are hunting for prospects who they can project to the next level. Personally, I think that's overblown too.
There's no stat for pitch movement which is the key to getting outs, making people swing where the ball isn't.
New User
Steve Carlton won 27 games and a Cy Young for a last place team. The truly dominant pitchers will still dominate even on bad clubs. The pitcher, more than anyone on the field, controls his own destiny.
Registered OOTP User
a pitcher that can K 27 straight batters controls his destiny far more than a pitcher that cant.
[I]"I think our lineup is better even though we lost Alfonso Soriano. With Guzman[/i] (!) [i]and Schneider, the way he is swinging this year, I think we'll score as many runs as last year."[/I]
--Nationals third baseman [B]Ryan Zimmerman[/B]
:eek:
o
Wins are vastly more meaningful for starters than relievers, but they're still a junk stat. What if a guy happens to get lucky and has and gives up 10 runs each game he pitches, but his team gives him an average run support of 12, so he ends up with a 18-10 record. Is he a good pitcher? No.
Wins are vastly overrated.but Ks are vastly overrated.
Over a guy who can get 27 straight strikeouts? A strikeout gives no room for fielder error. Once the balls in play, it's up to the fielders, not the pitcher.I'll take a guy who can get 27 straight ground outs any day.
Well, I think you're confusing the strikeout with the radar gun. Making a batter swing where the ball isn't is the exact definition of a strike out...Ks have a lot of value in scouting but that's because they are hunting for prospects who they can project to the next level. Personally, I think that's overblown too.
There's no stat for pitch movement which is the key to getting outs, making people swing where the ball isn't.
Banned
Blyleven maybe depends you can make a case either way. But Kaat & John. C'mon that's a big stretch. LOL. **** if you let them in players like Jack Morris, Charlie Hough, Doyle Alexander should be shoe-ins.I do believe that both Tommy John and Jim Kaat should be in the Hall, as well as Blyleven.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
