Baseball HOF: Who makes it in addition to Ripken and Gwynn?

It's hard to think of him among the best ever when he only merited Cy Young votes in four different seasons, but only three in the top five (1984-3rd, 1985-3rd, 1989-4th) in 22 seasons. Sutton had five.

Add in that he didn't reach 300 victories despite that longevity, and it's another strike against him.

 

Smasher, I always enjoy your posts immensely, but you're being a little bit dishonest in the lack of full Sutton disclosure here.

Your win total numbers are right, but let's delve a little deeper. I think we'll see that Sutton wasn't exactly getting beaten in the win column by Secretariat-like margins.

1970 -- Osteen 16 wins, Sutton 15 wins
1971 -- Downing 20 wins, Sutton 17 wins and a better ERA
1972 -- Osteen 20 wins, Sutton 19 wins and a 2.08 ERA, more than a half-point better than Osteen
1974 -- Messersmith 20 wins, Sutton 19 wins
1975 -- Messersmith 18 wins, Hooton 18 wins, Sutton 16 wins
1977 -- Tommy John 20 wins, Rick Rhoden 16 wins, Sutton 14 wins, but second in ERA
1978 -- Hooton 19, John 17, Rau 15, Sutton 15.
1979 -- Sutcliffe 17, Sutton 12-15.

The only year in there were Sutton was not effective was '79, when the Dodgers sucked in general (and Sutton would go 13-5, 2.20 ERA in his last year with L.A. in '80). Sutton had more staying power than any pitcher on that list except Osteen (at the end of his line) and John (who pitched at a just barely over mediocre level for eons).

I'm not saying he's Cy freaking Young, but Sutton's career is trashed way too much. I think his me-me dickhead reputation is the root cause of a lot of it.

 

Oz --

A brief bit of research will show you that had Blyleven received league-average run support, he'd be well over 300 wins.

He pitched for some very bad teams.

 

Again ... cumulative stats are a project of longevity as much as greatness. Blyleven is close. If you want to put him in, I won't lose any sleep over it. But he's not a slam dunk. He never won a Cy Young Award. His career ERA+ is 118. He's in a category with Kaat, Sutton, John and a bunch of other guys. Maybe slightly better.

 

And Blyleven gave up 430 career home runs. He was a walking, talking steroid era.

And bad teams? In his 23-season career (he played 24, but he was hurt through most of 1982, so I'm throwing it out), he played a full season on losing teams in eight of them. It's not like he was constantly surrounded by dreck.

 

While longevity counts, I think dominance should count more. And Blyleven was never dominant.

IMO, his strikeout and shutout numbers offset the relative lack of "greatness" to a large degree, and I think he should be in the Hall.

But as jag said, he's not a slam dunk and I won't lose any sleep whether he's in or out. You can make a strong case for both.

 

All of these contentions have been addressed, and addressed fairly strongly. See for yourself:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2004/12/bert_blyleven_f_1.php

The lack of a Cy Young Award argument is particularly pernicious, given that one can make a fairly strong case that Blyleven got hosed out of more than one CYA by voters who went largely by win total.

The guy is eighth since 1900 in shutouts. Never dominant?

 

<i>"one can make a fairly strong case that Blyleven got hosed out of more than one CYA by voters who went largely by win total."</i>

You think? Or do you think the lack of votes was based on the fact that his rep was as a pitcher who could always find a way to lose a game in the late innings? You know one of the ways he did that? By chasing strikeouts instead of just trying to get batters out.

He didn't last long in Pittsburgh because he clashed with Chuck Tanner, which is almost impossible. Tanner would yank Blyleven from games before he could fuck it up in the late innings. Instead of seeing the logic of turning things over to a pretty strong bullpen, Blyleven moped and at one point jumped the club because he wasn't being allowed to attain his personal goals.

 

His win total speaks for itself. I would never argue that he wasn't a very good pitcher. The rap against him as a HOF candidate was that he rarely was the best pitcher on his own team. For the 10-year period cited, there was almost always someone more impressive on the Dodgers staff.

 

You mean like in 1977, when he went 14-12 -- with otherwise dominant numbers -- but lost the Cy Young to...

Sparky Lyle.

Or in 1974, when he had the following season stats: 2.66 ERA, 281 IP, 249 K's and 17 wins, and did not receive a single vote for the award?

You're telling me he was overlooked to that extent because he clashed with a manager in Pittsburgh?

Interesting...

Come with better than that, or don't come at all.

 

Yes, absolutely, his standing in the 1974 Cy Young voting was affected by a clash he would have with a manager two teams later n 1980.

Go back and try reading it again.

 

I second his plagiarism. Please.

Pretty please.

Vote Bert into the Hall.

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(