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

[Columbo]

I wasn't clear enough.

I meant without his name being attached to the surgery, few know who he is as a pitcher. Being the namesake of the surgery is the reason he's a household name, and still in the discussion. If it was called "elbow ligament replacement surgery" or some such procedural name, Tommy John the pitcher doesn't sniff Cooperstown.

I didn't mean anything about John himself having the surgery. Sorry.

Even if the surgery doesn't bear his name he still ends up with 288 wins...worthy of consideration, but ultimately, short of enshrinement.

I do think the surgery makes him a more serious candidate.

In 10 years... writers will be hacking off testicles to find a reason to induct a pitcher, since none will have 300 wins.

Morris, Blyleven and John will all have to get more serious consideration then.

Morris is just a ****ing travesty.

 

[BYH]

John won't get any consideration in 10 years, since he'll be off the ballot.

Perhaps time will help Morris and Blyleven. I'm not that confident.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Hell, I'll say it.

Without the surgery, Tommy John's name is less relevant than Old Hoss Radbourne. He was the definition of a journeyman.

No way in hell he should get in to the Hall.

Without the surgery? Why not say without the 300-odd wins, Don Sutton woul dbe less relevant than Old Hoss Radbourne and the definition of a journeyman?

When Tommy John dies, the first line in his obit will be about his surgery and how it extended the careers of thousands of pitchers. It defines him. He shouldn't be punished because it gave him the chance to rack up 288 wins.

I don't think John's a HOFer, but he certainly deserves discussion...for both the procedure he inspired and his career.

Then put Dr. Andrews in the Hall. Jim Kaat should get into the Hall before Tommy John. Hell no on Blyleven, and I just can't go with Gossage, just as I couldn't go with Eckersley: too many fair to middling years.

 

[Bubbler]

Blyleven was a good pitcher who accumulated numbers by sticking around a long time. Some folks like those kinds of candidates. Not me. I prefer greatness. Blyleven made two All-Star teams, finished in the Top 5 in the Cy Young voting three times and had an ERA+ of 118. That's not great.

Frankly, he's Don Sutton without the 300 wins. And Sutton shouldn't be in.

See, I kind of get the rancor towards Sutton, but on the other hand, he was the undisputed ace of the 70s Dodgers -- a team that won three pennants. He's better than Blyleven in that regard.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

" he was the undisputed ace of the 70s Dodgers"


Not even close. There were two seasons in the '70s ('73 and '76) where he was the Dodgers' best starting pitcher.

The other years, he was behind:

70 -- Claude Osteen
71 -- Al Downing
72 -- Osteen
74 -- Andy Messersmith
75 -- Messersmith, Burt Hooton
77 -- Tommy John
78 -- Hooton, John, Doug Rau
79 -- Rick Sutcliffe

 

[Tom Petty]

smasher, i believe the quote was "he was the undisputed ace of the 70s Dodgers."

your response was "Not even close."

for your convenience, here is a list of games won by dodger pitchers (you listed) throughout the 70s:
osteen - 66 wins
downing - 56
messersmith - 33
hooten - 71
john - 87
rau - 90
sutcliffe - 17
sutton - 166, and had an era higher than 3.23 three times throughout the decade.

yes, don sutton was the undisputed ace of the dodger staff in the 70s.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

I haven't called Elias to verify, but I'm wondering if the fact he was the only starter who was there all 10 years factored into his having the most wins in that period?

Osteen was there from '70-'73. Downing was '71-'77, the last three years as a reliever. Messersmith was '73-'75. Hooton was '76-'79. John was '72-'78, with no '75 season. Rau was '72-'79 and Sutcliffe was limited to three games before his official rookie season in '79.

"Ace" means you're the team's best pitcher. Sutton qualified as the Dodgers' best starter in two of 10 seasons in the '70s.

In the years that Osteen won 66 games, Sutton won 69. In the years that Hooton won 71, Sutton won 62.

You are correct that he was generally better than Doug Rau. But not in 1978.

 

[Tom Petty]

I haven't called Elias to verify, but I'm wondering if the fact he was the only starter who was there all 10 years factored into his having the most wins in that period?

Osteen was there from '70-'73. Downing was '71-'77, the last three years as a reliever. Messersmith was '73-'75. Hooton was '76-'79. John was '72-'78, with no '75 season. Rau was '72-'79 and Sutcliffe was limited to three games before his official rookie season in '79.

"Ace" means you're the team's best pitcher. Sutton qualified as the Dodgers' best starter in two of 10 seasons in the '70s.

In the years that Osteen won 66 games, Sutton won 69. In the years that Hooton won 71, Sutton won 62.

You are correct that he was generally better than Doug Rau. But not in 1978.

jesus smasher, sutton was the dodgers' best pitcher throughout the decade of the '70s.

seems pretty simple ... maybe i'm missing something.

 

[zeke12]

Blyleven was a good pitcher who accumulated numbers by sticking around a long time. Some folks like those kinds of candidates. Not me. I prefer greatness. Blyleven made two All-Star teams, finished in the Top 5 in the Cy Young voting three times and had an ERA+ of 118. That's not great.

Frankly, he's Don Sutton without the 300 wins. And Sutton shouldn't be in.

Blyleven is fifth all time in strikeouts, the best measure of a pitcher's dominance. Where is Don Sutton on that list?

 

[jagtrader]

So strikeouts are the major criteria now?

Sutton has more wins, a slightly lower ERA and a slightly lower WHIP than Blyleven. If you look at ERA+, Blyleven has a 10 point edge. Neither is a Hall of Famer or was an elite pitcher for an extended period. They both stuck around long enough to get an argument. Suttom got to 300 wins and cheated to get there, so he's supposedly worthy.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I find it highly amusing (note to desk, didn't use "ironic") a thread with Cal Ripken's name in the title devolved into the annual rant about Don Sutton.
Here's the deal. When assessing a player's worth LONGEVITY COUNTS! Being damn good for decades is a tremendous accomplishment. It's not like Sutton (or Blyleven, for whom I do vote annually) came to camp every spring facing no competition for a spot in their team's starting rotation. Three hundred twenty four wins is a Hall of Fame credential no matter what.
Every year the Hall of Fame arguments reveal a bizarre anomaly. There are many people in sports journalism and even more among plain old fans who'll insist they love baseball, but at the same time seem to hate baseball players.

 

[zeke12]

So strikeouts are the major criteria now?

Sutton has more wins, a slightly lower ERA and a slightly lower WHIP than Blyleven. If you look at ERA+, Blyleven has a 10 point edge. Neither is a Hall of Famer or was an elite pitcher for an extended period. They both stuck around long enough to get an argument. Suttom got to 300 wins and cheated to get there, so he's supposedly worthy.

Since when have strikeouts not been a major criteria for pitchers? Your argument adressed dominance, and I would counter that Blyleven is fifth all-time in the only true statistical reflection of dominance.

If you want the overall argument, I'll repost it, once again citing Rich Lederer at baseballanalysts.com:

Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins.

I, Like Mr. Gee, am continually baffled the Blyleven's status as a horse who took the ball every fourth day, finished his own games and pitched in the Majors for 20 years are held against him when it comes to HOF balloting.

Absolutely baffled.

 

[Oz]

Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins.

I, Like Mr. Gee, am continually baffled the Blyleven's status as a horse who took the ball every fourth day, finished his own games and pitched in the Majors for 20 years are held against him when it comes to HOF balloting.

Absolutely baffled.

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.

 

[Bubbler]

" he was the undisputed ace of the 70s Dodgers"


Not even close. There were two seasons in the '70s ('73 and '76) where he was the Dodgers' best starting pitcher.

The other years, he was behind:

70 -- Claude Osteen
71 -- Al Downing
72 -- Osteen
74 -- Andy Messersmith
75 -- Messersmith, Burt Hooton
77 -- Tommy John
78 -- Hooton, John, Doug Rau
79 -- Rick Sutcliffe

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.

 

[zeke12]

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.

 

[jagtrader]

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.

 

[Bubbler]

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.

 

[buckweaver]

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.

 

[zeke12]

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?

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

<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 **** 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.